Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • Clear-cut cases of simple vandalism and spamming should be reported to AIV
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
  • Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

G000p10 and continuous CT/SA violations

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

---

G000p10 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly edit warring, POV pushing ethnicity and castes and removing cited content in WP:CT/SA topics, despite being given the contentious topics warning several times (here, here and here).

Example of edit warring in CT/SA topics: Swati people (Pakistan), Saraiki language, Saidu Baba

Removal of cited material in CT/SA articles: blanking article on Peshawar, removing references on Saraiki language, removing references on Dera Ismail Khan, removing references on Lahnda.

POV pushing and probable use of LLM: Kheri, Barkhan.

Despite being cautioned by editors regarding WP:RAJ, G000p10 has continued using them:, .

Further examples of WP:CT/SA violations: Pahari (Poonchi), Death of Bushra Zaidi and others.

So far, G000p10 has shown no willingness for adhering with WP:CT/SA or even acknowledging it despite being explained in simple terms what it means for them. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with how my editing is being presented here.

Most of the edits mentioned above were made in good faith and with sources. In many cases, I added references or explained my reasoning, yet my edits were still reverted. I also responded to some of the warnings left on my talk page, especially where I was accused of disruptive editing, but those responses do not seem to have been taken into account.

I would ask administrators to look at the actual diffs and sources themselves. For example, on the Swati people article I added Pashto to the language section because Pashto is spoken by Swatis, particularly in Battagram District and parts of Mansehra. I did not remove Hindko or Urdu from the article.

I also feel that many of my edits have been challenged from the outset by the reporting editor. At the same time, there are other editors making contentious edits on topics related to ethnicity, language and regional history, including edits that promote particular viewpoints, yet those edits do not seem to attract the same level of attention. That has been my experience as an editor on these topics.

I am not claiming that every edit I have made was perfect. If I made mistakes, I am willing to correct them and follow advice from administrators. However, I do not believe this report fairly represents my editing history, and I ask that my contributions be judged based on the actual diffs, sources and discussions rather than broad characterizations of my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G000p10 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@G000p10 have you read the warning notice about the contentious topic? Please pay special attention to the section that tells you Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Can you also confirm which AI/LLM or chatbot you are currently using, as it seems to have missed informing you about this very important point? It should probably let you know about the WP:NEWLLM guideline as well. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I should note, that unless my dumb brain is not understanding something, the extended confirmed restriction as part of WP:CT/SA was modified in March to remove the social groups language, so that now the ECR part is Indian military history and caste-related topics of South Asia . This editors template warning was before that change. Not that I'm happy about that change... CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Good spot! That was a direct quote from the first notification they they received in February (see OP diffs). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of the update. That being said, CT/SA still applies on several of above linked articles and G000p10 has shown no signs that they acknowledge those sanctions are in place. Removing cited content and POV pushing is also anything but disruptive. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have read the warning and understand what is being said.

What I do not understand is why the reporting editor keeps applying these concerns almost exclusively to my edits. Since I started editing these topics, he has repeatedly reverted my contributions, warned me, and cited different policies against my edits, even when I provided sources and explained my reasoning.

At the same time, there are other editors on some of these same articles making highly contentious edits, adding questionable information, and pushing particular viewpoints, yet I rarely see the same concern directed towards those edits. That is what I find frustrating.

The result is that my sourced edits are often removed, while edits supporting a particular narrative remain in place. Whether that is intentional or not, it creates an uneven situation where one side's viewpoint is given more space in the article while alternative sourced information is reverted.

I am not saying that every edit I have made was perfect. If I misunderstood a policy or made mistakes, I am willing to accept that and improve. However, I do not think it is fair to portray me as the sole source of disputes on these articles when there are multiple editors involved and ongoing disagreements about the content.

I would simply ask that my edits be judged on their sources and content, and that the same standards be applied to everyone editing these topics. G000p10 (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You've pretty much said the exact same thing you did before but didn't tell us about the AI, LLM or chatbot that you're apparently using to edit Wikipedia. Can you tell us more about that? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever been pulled over by a police officer for speeding while driving a car? Telling the police officer that there are other people speeding too will get you out of a ticket approximately never. It's the same principle here; if your edits are proper, a sanction is inappropriate and if your edits are not, sanctions may be appropriate. The status of other editor's edits have no bearing on yours. I suspect LLMs as well, but how would "most" of your edits being made in good faith be a point in your favor? They all should be. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying that if other editors break rules then my edits should be ignored.

What I am saying is that it does matter when one editor keeps reverting, warning and reporting the same person over and over again, while not showing the same level of concern towards other editors involved in the same disputes.

This report is not accusing me of making up sources or knowingly adding false information. Most of the issues raised are about conduct and editing policies.

If someone is constantly using policies against me whenever I edit or correct information on certain topics, while editors pushing the opposite view are rarely challenged in the same way, then naturally it starts to feel like one side is being protected while the other side is being scrutinized.

The reason this matters is because it affects the content of the articles themselves. If editors trying to challenge, correct, or balance certain information are constantly reverted, warned, or reported, while others are left largely unchallenged, then over time the article can become increasingly one-sided. Information supporting one viewpoint stays, while information challenging it is removed or discouraged. That is not healthy for neutrality.

That is why I think the wider context matters. The issue is not simply whether I made a mistake on a particular edit but whether the same standards are being applied to everyone involved.

G000p10 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC) :::

Again, you need to focus on what you did rather than cloud the issue. If another editor is acting improperly, either add diffs or drop it. You don't need to lecture us on how the encyclopedia works. And if you're using an LLM to aid you, you need to stop immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@G000p10 Are you using an AI, LLM or chatbot to generate your replies and/or Wikipedia edits? Yes or no, please answer clearly as you've been asked many times but won't confirm. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already said what I needed to say about the report. The reason I haven't answered every question that's been put to me is because I've been told more than once not to get dragged into endless arguments on this page, so I've tried to avoid that.

As for your question, no, I'm not using AI, LLM to write my replies or make Wikipedia edits.

Pls keep the discussion focused on the report and the edits being discussed rather than going around in circles over the same side issues. I've explained my reasoning and concerns already and I don't have much more to add beyond that. G000p10 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. We needed to see whether you were personally misunderstanding the rules around contentious topics or were using an AI, which would also explain the misunderstanding.

The report is about you not following several Wikipedia policies and guidelines despite having it explained to you more than once. If the first warnings didn't work, how can we know you'll follow them going forwards? It really doesn't matter whether your edits were technically correct if shouldn't be writing about the subject in the first place.

If you see other editors violating the same policy then they should be warned and reported also. This is a volunteer project and it's not possible for administrators to respond to issues if they're not made aware of them.

Similarly, just because other editors are violating a sanction it doesn't make it ok for you continue as well. You appear to be saying that one volunteer editor is responsible for warning all other editors equally - I need to reiterate that we're all here doing this in our own free time and can only do what we can. If you see an editor violating a Contentious topic sanction, warn them. If they continue, report them. If you aren't sure, ask for help at the Teahouse or Helpdesk

Here and now, you've been reported to ANI so we need to deal with your apparent inability to follow Wikipedia guidelines - that's the report that's been made and the evidence that's been presented for consideration. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

So far you have not addressed issues of your violation of CT/SA and removing of referenced content at all. 'Other editors do it too' is not a justification. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

many of the edits being cited were repeatedly reverted by the reporting editor despite being supported by sources.

For example here I provided two separate sources stating that Saidu Baba was from the Safi tribe. The information was sourced, yet the edit was reverted and I was accused of disruptive editing,I even asked politely why my edit was reverted despite providing sources and I also denied involving in content dispute here but he didn't reply.

Likewise here I added information regarding Pashto in the Swati article because Pashto is spoken in Battagram by Swati people (Pakistan). I was not involved in any dispute with another editor. Nevertheless, the edit was reverted and characterized as a distruptive editing.

Then, here I was informed that I could not edit South Asian topics because I did not meet the 500-edit requirement. That restriction was subsequently used against several of my edits.

The allegation of ST/CA is unsupported. No source-text comparison has been provided and no specific passage has been identified as close paraphrasing. My edits were written in my own words and supported by sources.

Likewise, the accusation that I used AI-generated content is unsupported and no evidence has been provided.

As a result, the report presents sourced edits as misconduct while omitting the circumstances under which those edits were reverted and later cited as evidence against me. G000p10 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Before addressing your above edits, I am asking once again, do you understand what WP:CT/SA means? Sutyarashi (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what WP:CT/SA means. It requires editors to be more cautious when editing contentious South Asian topics.

That is exactly what I did. My edits were neutral, sourced, and properly cited. I did not engage in disruptive editing, nor was I involved in any content dispute.

You accused me of disruptive editing and content disputes, but when I asked where exactly I had engaged in disruptive editing or what content dispute I was involved in, no explanation was provided.

For example, in the Saidu Baba case, I provided two sources stating that Saidu Baba was from the Safi tribe. Despite providing sources, the edit was reverted and I was accused of disruptive editing and involvement in a content dispute. I still do not understand what was disruptive about adding sourced and cited information or what content dispute I was supposedly involved in.

The same happened with the Swati article. I added information regarding Pashto because Pashto is spoken by Swati people in Battagram. The edit was reverted and again I was accused of involvement in a content dispute despite not being in a dispute with anyone.

My edits were neutral, sourced, and properly cited. How exactly does that violate WP:CT/SA? If there was a problem with the sources, neutrality, or content itself, that was never explained.here i mysellf removed the blog style source and added reliables sources and explained it too but it was still reverted. Instead, the discussion eventually shifted to the 500-edit requirement. G000p10 (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/SA does not require you to be just cautious, it requires you to not edit articles related to history and castes at all until you have made atleast 500 edits. Your edits at Saidu Baba and several other articles violated both of these. Your other edits were also far from neutral, you removed references, blanked articles and resorted to edit warring, as above examples show. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/SA does not mean a blanket ban on editing South Asian topics until 500 edits. It means careful editing and following normal content policies.In the Saidu Baba case, I added information supported by two sources about his Safi tribe affiliation. In the Swati article, I added that Pashto is spoken in Battagram based on sources.How does adding sourced information violate neutrality or become disruptive editing or a content dispute? It doesn’t.I was not in any edit war or content dispute. I provided evidence above showing the sources and context of my edits.I leave everything to the administrators to decide based on the diffs and evidence provided. G000p10 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No one said it means a blanket ban on editing South Asian topics until 500 edits. CT/SA does however forbidden any edit who is not extended confirmed from editing anything about "Caste-related topics in South Asia". Some of your edits seem to clearly come under this purview therefore your edits are in violation of CT/SA. The fact you still don't understand this after all this time makes me wonder if there is any hope of you being able to edit here without violating the restriction. If you cannot abide by the restriction whether because of an inability to understand it or any other reason, we will have no choice but to indefinite block you which IMO is coming very close. I'd suggest you carefully re-read the restriction and come back and demonstrate you understand it. If you continue to say stuff unrelated to what concerns us like, "WP:CT/SA does not mean a blanket ban ..... It means careful editing and following normal content policies and completely ignore the extended confirm restriction which does exist, I'd support an indefinite block until you can demonstrate to an admin you now understand CT/SA. Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, even if you are argue certain edits of yours said to violate the restriction do not violate the restriction because they are not "caste-related topics in South Asia" broadly construed, this would require you to mention the restriction and explain why you think it doesn't violate the restriction rather than just generically talk about other stuff. None of the other stuff is relevant because the argument is that your edits are about "caste-related topics in South Asia" broadly construed. Therefore however perfect your edits are, you are still forbidden from making them. And obviously the fact you can edit a lot of stuff about South-Asia without violating the restriction is also irrelevant if those particular edits did violate the restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have already explained it several times , Simply adding "Pashto" to the language section of Swati People (Pakistan) based on sources, or correcting that Saidu Baba was from the Safi tribe based on two sources, does not violate ST/CA, does not amount to disruptive editing, and does not constitute a content dispute and also doesn't violates WP:CT/SA and if you had read my reply from yesterday I exactly explained the policy like you did. If you want me to silence it's fine. Didn't know answering question is arguing. I won't argue further nether I will reply to any question after this cause it "violation of policy" too. G000p10 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has been going on for days and barely anyone has asked the reporter to prove his allegations. I am being asked continuesly, the discussion is going nowhere since nothing can be proven against me so it went from violation of policies to AI use which couldn't be proven as well now the discussion is about if I understand Wikipedia policies and don't reply to allegations cause it's violation as well. G000p10 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The reporter has already provided their evidence, so we don't need to ask them for it. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

amd I have provided my evidence, explained everything. if you check my edits it isn't distruptive editing, nor I was with content dispute with anyone nether I violated WP:CT/SA G000p10 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think what South Asian "tribe" someone belongs to is not a caste-related topic? Can you explain why you do not think the entirety of the article Swati people (Pakistan) is a caste-related topic? Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I simply added Pashto in language section spoken by Swati people in battagram. So it was about language.he reverted it not because it was violation of WP:CT/SA but accused me of distruptive editing and content dispute as you can see here. How was it distruptive editing or content dispute? G000p10 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The entire point of the restriction is that edits to it are not permitted by non-EC editors regardless of what they are. Certainly the language members of a caste speak is relevant to the caste. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• The above discussion is going nowhere. G000p10 is clearly unable or unwilling to understand the simple rule several editors have patiently tried to explain to them for days, so a CIR block is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I indefed for disruptive editing as a normal admin block. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Dan100 refusing to engage with editors raising concerns

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

---

Dan100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had (emphasis on the past tense) a user talk page filled with messages from numerous editors trying to communicate with them, be it about their constant lack of edit summaries, or various other issues. The last time they edit the talk page was in May 2020, to deny a bot - the last time they actually communicated with another editor on the talk page was January 2018. When prompted by myself today to actually communicate, their response was to wipe the talk page and move on (with, it might be added, still no edit summaries...).

Can we please make it clear to this editor that ignoring, and indeed wiping, talk page messages for 8 years is simply unacceptable, given that communication is expected of editors? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell me what policy says that Dan100 cannot wipe his own user page and what sanctions policy proscribes for not doing enough edit summaries. Xtools by the way suggests that 90% of most recent major edits have had summaries Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That isn’t the reason why I’m posting here. I’m posting here because they refuse to communicate. Of course removing content from your talk page is permitted - heck if it wasn’t, archive bots would be dead! I mentioned it here because I feel it’s symptomatic of this editor’s continued refusal to engage with other editors who raise legitimate concerns on their talk page. Communication isn’t optional in a collaborative project. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

From your request it sounds like you were offended by their wiping their talk page and not using edit summaries enough. Aside from that, what specific. Issues are there with their edits that requires an admin to intervene. What specific remedy are you seeking? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The goal here is to get them to communicate with other editors. Editors must be able to discuss with one another, and it appears they are ignoring any and all talk page messages. If it means we need to temporarily block from article space until they start communicating then perhaps that’s the solution - I hope it doesn’t come to that, as they are a productive editor otherwise. But as I said above, communication isn’t optional. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

From all we can tell, the editor read the talk page messages from Voidxor, listened to the concerns and modified their editing. There is no requirement that Dan100 reply to the message so long as their editing responds to the concerns.

For what it's worth, there is no requirement that editors use edit summaries, though it is strongly suggested/best practice, and if the reason isn't obvious the mandate is stronger. I checked through some recent edits and didn't find any concerning edits that lack an edit summary - they all seem to be straightforward improvements. Katzrockso (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I fundamentally disagree here. Per WP:COMMUNICATE, All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to use talk pages to discuss issues when needed. I don’t want to ever assume bad faith of anyone, but Dan100 here is making no effort at all to use their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

When we say communication is required, we mean it's required when there's something to communicate about. What particular thing do you feel they should be communicating about? EEng 11:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

When I look at the revision of their talk page before they blanked it, there were numerous attempts by editors to contact them about various things. Setting aside the edit summaries for a second, I count at least one editor questioning an unexplained revert, a discussion about a minor content dispute, template naming, and a request for clarification about edits made to an article. None of these got any form of reply or reaction whatsoever. The reason I’m here, and the reason I mentioned the page blanking, is that this is a concerning pattern. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Just keeping this open… given they still haven’t responded to any concerns including this one Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

And still no response… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 00:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Worth saying, through all of this, they are very much still editing. @Dan100, care to finally communicate with other editors? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Look, it's not enough to say that people raised concerns. For all we know those concerns became moot for some reason, so that no response -- or at least, no response on the user's talk page -- is required. Please specify, with diffs, some particular thing you claim this editor should be communicating about. EEng 16:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Without even digging too far (and yes, it's going back to the edit summaries - but again, not what I'm taking issue with here, even though it's exceedingly annoying and IMO rude), just two days before they wiped their talk page they were challenged about not replying to any of their talk page messages - P.S. Hopefully you are seeing, and responsive to, feedback from other editors on your talk page. I don't see any replies. Going back a little further in the talk page, to late 2025, an editor asked for Dan100 to clarify some edits they'd made to an article - an explanation that was never forthcoming. The most recent message was myself asking them why they were not responding on their talk page - and it was then that instead of replying, they decided to wipe it instead. In terms of the edit summaries, yes they have improved... but may are still basically useless, reading simply "edit"...

I'm rather concerned honestly by the response here too - are we basically giving carte blanche to editors to ignore messages left by other well-meaning editors on their talk page? Because that's what this editor is doing. Their last interaction on any kind of talk page (excepting page moves) is 2024 at Talk:Threads (1984 film), and the last time they replied to anything on their own talk page was 2018 - . I mean, seriously? 8 years since they last replied on their talk page, with 83 edits since then? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All that stuff you're mentioning is stale, and (as I've already mentioned) possibly was resolved elsewhere than on that user's talk page. And edit summaries aren't required. I can't imagine why you're still stuck on this. You haven't pointed to any current issue with this editor's activity. You need to drop this. EEng 23:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, we’re setting a dangerous precedent allowing people to ignore their talk pages… but I’m not an admin, so can’t say more than that. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to give actual evidence of an actual problem. You've completely failed to do that. There's no precedent here, dangerous or not. Multiple experienced editors have encouraged you to stop beating this dead horse and move on. EEng 16:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Can someone please put this waste-of-time thread out of its misery. EEng 16:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Request for Community Review Regarding Allegations Against User:Tgeorgescu

I would like input from the community regarding a dispute I have been having with User:Tgeorgescu about the article Bocconi University School of Law.

User:Tgeorgescu keeps saying that the article was written using artificial intelligence. I dispute that claim and have tried to resolve this issue by providing explanations of how I edited the article and replying on talk pages.

The claim keeps getting re-raised in spite of any attempts I may have made to refute it. I feel like the discussion revolves around baseless personal allegations against me and not about any real content or sourcing problems.

It would be greatly appreciated if the community could comment on the following issues:

Do claims that editors used AI require more than just a suspicion? Does continuing to make the same allegation despite being refuted go against collegial behavior? Should the discussion be about the article itself, instead?

I'm tired of finding my talk page filled with these accusations from this user every day.

The discussion is still open, so I'd appreciate it being explored in more depth, especially since it resulted in the unjust deletion of a page.

PS. From an editor with a conflict of interest with Palantir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo.primavera06 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no desire to perform edits about Palantir. So that point is moot.

In respect to the deletion: I'm more moderate, and I would have been content with reverting to the non-AI version of the article.

As for being AI-generated, I was acting on weighty hunches rather than hard evidence. But more people pointed out why it was AI-generated.

Because I was not planning to read 20-30 sources just to make sure that those people exist. At you did not exactly deny it was AI-generated, just doubted that that's relevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The guess it was AI looks debunked. I wouldn't keep pushing it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There is of course a difference between AI-generated prose and AI-generated references.

See and . And , , . If I would be the only one saying he used AI, I would have dropped the stick about AI.

The point is rather straightforward: he is not used to working without the help of AI. Since repeated warnings and Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Matteo.primavera06 did not dissuade him from using AI. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you should probably drop the stick at this point is what I'm saying, not double down. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You're obsessed with this AI thing even though they've explained in detail why it's not AI, and a user even wrote down all the signs that prove it's not AI. The only thing in the sources is a mistake in the links to the CV pages, which were created using Excel and artificial intelligence. Continuing to insist on this just makes you look ridiculous. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Since you also double down, see , , , . Just count from all the diffs inside this section how many different editors said it is an AI problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Constant denial of using AI

• Matteo.primavera06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He is constantly denying that he used AI at Bocconi University School of Law and User talk:Tgeorgescu.

Arguments:

• the vast majority of sources at BUSL article simply WP:V the bare fact that those people exist; IMHO that's characteristic for a low-quality article produced by AI;

• Your comment to Tgeorgescu was entirely AI generated, I ran it through three checkers. We want to talk with you as one human to another, not with an AI. We do not expect perfect grammar and spelling. If you are using an AI because English is not your primary language, you may want to consider editing the Wikipedia of your primary language instead, then you will not struggle to understand or to be understood. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia.
  — User:331dot

  . tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
  • https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VbzVd3Fdee-WvreTTm6eX6xUUG41Tujg?usp=drive_link I invite you to evaluate the facts, not the speculations. I ask you to kindly stop harassing me; it seems you've developed a mania for stalking me and the page. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Why do you need an AI detector (which does not seem to be one of the reliable ones, even) to tell you whether you, yourself, used AI? I actually agree in this case that this does not seem obviously AI-assisted, but this is not helping your case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
      • I don't know how to prove I didn't use AI. That's why I used an AI check. I'm tired of being accused of something false by unreasonable people. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

      A quick spot check of the references in revision 1358772800 landed this in G15 territory; references nr. 5, nr. 6, nr. 9, nr. 10, nr. 11, nr. 12, nr. 13, nr. 16, nr. 17, nr. 18, nr. 19, nr. 20, nr. 21, nr. 23, nr. 25, nr. 26, nr. 27, nr. 28, nr. 29, nr. 30, nr. 31, nr. 33, nr. 34, nr. 35, nr. 36, nr. 39, nr. 41, nr. 43, nr. 45, nr. 46, and nr. 48 return 404 not found (and some other references are soft 404s and redirect instead, like ref nr. 8). There's so many of them that it almost can't be generated. I just picked clicked a few references and found one 404, and then checked the surrounding references and came up with this list. I haven't even checked all of the references. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

      Yes, I apologize, but not all professors' CVs are accessible on the site in the same format. I'll continue the corrections I've already made. Thank you, at least a helpful comment some time. In any case, the article has now been deleted, so I can't do anything more. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

      @Gurkubondinn: How many of the non-404 references instead point to the website's homepage specifically rather than to a more specific URL on that domain? I'm finding this is another common way that LLMs botch sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 03:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

      @Jéské Couriano: there was a few references like that, but I didn't include them in the list (as I was just listing 404 refs), and I didn't even check all of the sources. Agree with your observation that this is a rather common way that LLMs "misunderstand" how sourcing work. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • As for the sources, I will further improve them tomorrow so you can rest assured. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is not how Wikipedia works. The WP:ONUS was on you to build consensus to make those extreme changes that were poorly sourced, and read like a pamphlet issued by the university, not an encyclopedia article. I fully endorse Drmies turning the article into a redirect. I strongly suspect that LLMs have been used by you, though possibly not entirely so. We don't source things by the personal verifications of our editors. I don't believe you understand how Wikipedia sources things, so you certainly shouldn't be tackling a task as highly difficult as creating a new draft at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the allegation that I used LLMs, I request that such claims be substantiated with evidence. Speculating about another editor's editing methods is not a valid content-based argument. I would prefer that we focus on the quality of the sources, the notability of the subject, and the specific content of the article. I've already proven with evidence that it's not written with AI so I'd like to see him stop saying this over and over again. You're becoming ridiculous and a little obsessive.

  If there are sourcing deficiencies or passages that appear promotional, I am open to addressing them and working towards a consensus. As I've already made clear, let's discuss the merits of the matter; enough with general and pointless accusations. I think you're the one who's incapable of being an editor if you can't express concrete things, but rather general concepts that have little meaning.

  Can you please identify the specific sources or sections that you find problematic so that we can discuss them individually? Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  says your reply above is 60% AI-generated. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  And yet I wrote it. By hand. What AI generator do you use? Your imagination? Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  What do I know? I'm not quillbot, nor gptzero. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  https://www.zerogpt.com/ says it's 44.8% AI GPT*. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Going purely off of textual AISIGNS, it hits us back to back with WP:LETSFOCUSON and WP:CORCC, a classic 1-2 opener for AI generated comments, then finishes off with a bit of WP:WHERESTHEAI for goos measure. Athanelar (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  https://app.gptzero.me/ says it's 0% human, and 100% mixed, with a high confidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  And I can find you 10 more sites that say it's not like that. Let's stop accusing people of using AI without any clear evidence; otherwise, it just makes us look crazy. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I also scanned (just the prose, not the links). That also seems AI-generated. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would like to point out that you use the formal language required at the beginning of a conversation to adequately present the elements of a fact with AI. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  • The reference to Themis. Your source is https://www.themisnetwork.eu/, the correct source is: https://www.themis-network.org/ - this alone is a good indication of LLM at work. Then the Rule of Three is taken from the bullet points below "What is Themis?", and it's a fuzzy match regarding semensters, internships and seminars. The word "joint" appears, a LLM embellishment trait, but here is the real kicker: if you interpret the whole text, this Themis function comes off a certification programme, which has those three components. The source splits that point into a previous paragraph, so quite typically LLM has found its Rule of Three but disengaged from the necessary context around it. That context, the certification, did not make the draft. ChrysGalley (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• That School of Law article was a disaster already, even besides the LLM use, which I haven't looked at. Individual schools are rarely notable and this was basically just a bunch of organizational stuff one finds on the website. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Matteo.primavera06, it is a very bad idea to request protection for an article (claiming 'disruptive edits') while your editing on it is being discussed here at ANI. You have been reverted by multiple experienced contributors, and representing this as 'disruption' would be entirely inappropriate regardless of questions over AI use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

They literally deleted the article. It seems like an act of vandalism to me. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments like that are doing you absolutely no favours. You have had Wikipedia-policy-based explanations of why your edits are inappropriate, and why a separate article for the School of Law would need evidence of independent notability, not currently provided. Content disputes are never 'vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with changing it to a redirect. Looks like they just warred it back in. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Upon looking into this a bit more I am upgrading my opinion above -- while I would believe that AI was used to find sources (a lot of 404s), the prose itself does not seem to be AI-generated:

• Pangram -- which actually is one of the reliable AI detectors -- comes back 100% human
• Eye test does not seem AI-generated, none of the big post-2025 AI tells, and several syntax-level anti-tells in Special:Diff/1357915313: can be seen (#16 more common in human text than AI text after August 2025, -92% change), was taken (-93% change), started (-92% change), be able to (-91% change), out of the (-88% change), always been (-84% change), and similar such constructions.

There are definitely issues with promotional tone, though, and the sourcing issues are concerning. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, because a list of names cannot be seen as AI-generated. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's not how AI detectors work. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that possible AI use isn't really the issue here. What we have is someone with a clear conflict of interest (Matteo.primavera06 is directly communicating with the Dean concerning this article) attempting to force through promotional content, most of which is sourced to the School, and/or not properly sourced at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have expressed my availability to discuss the article seriously, regarding its specific content and sources, but you continue to avoid going into the merits, saying "x paragraph seems too subjective" or other helpful advice. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have just commented on the merits of the article, and on the merits of you contributing to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Robertsky That you deleted my page, doesn't it seem unfair to you since you weren't even participating in the discussion? Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you do the ping wrong? In any case, you requested for page protection at WP:RfPP, I acted on it seeing that there were multiple reverts in the history. If it is a redirect at which the protection was enabled, so be it. Page protection is meant to put a pause or stop to disruptive editing until the interested parties sort the issue out either on the article's talk page... or here now that we are here.

doesn't it seem unfair no, what would be unfair if the admin(s) who have been involved here or on the article had protected the article. A third-party who isn't participating in the discussion carrying out the action is pretty fair to everyone involved. You wouldn't want someone to be the judge, jury, and executioner, don't you?

Also a note, a deletion would mean that the previous revisions would not be accessible for evaluation by you or any other editors. Right now, it is a redirect to the article about the university and will remain so until at least the page protection expires. – robertsky (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Note. Having succeeded in getting the disputed page protected, but at the 'wrong version', Matteo.primavera06 has just requested that the protection be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Quickly scanning more text here (all percentages come from my analysis of AI-generated Wikipedia articles after August 2025 vs. Wikipedia articles written prior to June 2022 which are virtually certain to not be AI; most of them also show up when limiting the comparison strictly to human-written articles tagged with {{Advert}}, i.e., comparing promotional to promotional):

• "and later developed" is a parallelism error (it should be "and were later developed") of the kind AI doesn't generally make
• "very" - Much more common in human text (as most such intensifiers are), -89% change
• "a number of" - One of the big ones more common in human text, -87% change
• history, as well as, among the many -- Grammatical awkwardness AI generally doesn't output
• than that of -83% change
• General inconsistencies in list style, header style, etc. (also, AI text doesn't often do ==Header== without the surrounding spaces)
• Pangram still comes back 100% human, and I left out the paragraph with the names. I have now burned 2/4 of my daily free pangram scans, btw

Admittedly I have no idea what the issue with the sources is, and that issue is a major problem, but I do not think that the text is AI-generated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree: as far as I can discern, there are plenty enough concerns about Matteo's competencies to warrant heavy scrutiny, but I am not impressed with the heavily speculative reasoning of tgeorgescu (and a few others involved in this dispute) regarding the AI accusations. Heuristic LLM content detection almost invariably involves, yes, an LLM. That is, a tool which reflects the same level of unreliability which has driven the ban on AI content in the first instance. Even for the most popular tools, there is little in the way of independent, reproducible research on their overall failure rates that is generally agreed upon in the academic community, but impressionistically, even those designed by major players in the generative content space itself, are known to be wildly inconsistent and prone to both false positives and false negatives, for a bevy of reasons. There's certainly no community consensus adopting any of these tools or a burden-shifting standard based on their results.

Nevertheless, into the ambiguity of this situation have stepped a problematic number of editors who have aggressively embraced a double standard on the reliability of LLMs, provided they get to be the one benefiting from the reliance in a dispute. The mental gymnastics that result frankly sometimes border on double-think to my eye, and the behaviour has run rampant in certain spaces over the last six months, this page most assuredly included.

In any event, any user who finds themselves saying something along the lines of "As for being AI-generated, I was acting on weighty hunches rather than hard evidence." should surely know that they are on weak footing to sustain strong and express accusations--to the point where repeatedly doing so absolutely does raise issues of WP:ASPERSIONS, even if done in good faith--no matter their personal confidence in their "nose" with regard to such things. Because that kind of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants analysis of natural language constitutes an intersection of many of the most powerful cognitive biases to which the human mind is subject.

And believe me, I understand the painful catch-22 to this places us in as a community that has determined to take a firm line on AI slop (thank goodness) but the last thing we need to be doing is letting suspicions become sufficient excuse to abrogate normal behavioural guidelines. That expands, rather than contains, the disruption from LLM usage. And I have bad news for anyone hoping that this situation is one with a technical solution on the horizon, because, unfortunately generative content detectors are unlikely to get much better from here. For the same reason that other LLMs have plateaued in usefulness: they simply have limitations that are hardcoded into the mechanics of their pattern recognition and they are subject to informational/structural paucity constraints. In other words, it's about as good as it's gonna get for a while.

So yeah, we're in a pickle, and maybe part of dealing with it has to be some variation of the duck test, but it cannot be these wild, free-wheeling claims that have been so normalized as of late. We need some sort of community consensus on which indicators are reliable, and a fair model (as insulated from systemic biases as we can make it) for deciding when someone is "obviously" violating the ban. Because right now, aside from wasting a lot of community time on individual users' hunches, there's a lot of WP:BITE being directed at newer users, while established names get the benefit of the doubt. And for a community that is already years deep into an editor recruitment and retention crisis, that's a huge issue in itself. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, but I also have no idea what an actual solution to this would look like. We have consensus for some things, in the form of the G15 criteria, but it is very narrow and I don't think that were going easily unpickle ourselves from this one. Personally I've started feeling more and more like LLM-use needs to be treated as a behavioural issue in addition to a content issue, because often the best way to "prove" that someone is inserting generated text is by looking at their behaviour elsewhere in the project (I'm not talking about this specific ANI filing or users). ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I only use AI detectors when I am genuinely unsure on something and need a second "opinion," and I only use the good ones -- which by definition means I don't use them very often because they have daily limits. I would suspect, though -- and there is some evidence of this -- that they are better than the average layperson who has not read hundreds of thousands of words of AI edits. (They are certainly easier for the average layperson to believe than "LLMs gravitate toward syntactic constructions XYZ and away from ABC.") I also don't think that "generative content detectors are unlikely to get much better from here" is necessarily true (for one, people might actually succeed in pushing for watermarking).

That being said, all anybody ever has is "hunches" unless they were physically present when someone was writing, so if your bar for doing anything is 100% certainty then by definition nothing will be done. I don't necessarily know that "established names get the benefit of the doubt," either; at least in my case, most of what I flag is from at least a year ago. Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I missed that part, "established names get the benefit of the doubt" is not how I would characterise it. Anyone doing LLM identification and cleanup regularly gets doubted, insulted, and yelled at for doing it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That may well be the case; I have not had a huge surplus of availability for routine patrols in recent times, so I lack that context. I will say though that overwhelmingly (indeed, almost exclusively) the editors who get brought here to ANI on LLM accusations tend to be newer users. And of course much of that can be explained away by the presumption that older hands legitimately are much less likely to violate the ban, or to be inclined to use LLMs in the first instance. But it can't be that there's literally no well known names running around out there using it: they just don't face an immediate call for a CIR indef. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

they just don't face an immediate call for a CIR indef. I think it makes sense that someone who has a history of contribution to the project (and so has already demonstrated competence) gets more leeway if they try to work AI into their workflow than a newbie who comes in and immediately starts shotgunning AI slop all over the place.

I suppose there's also a selection bias in that the people who get caught and reported to ANI are the people who are the most obvious and incompetent with it (like the one the other day who literally added a reference "Example Academic Paper" by "A. Author" at "example-reliable-source dot com") and veteran editors are more likely to integrate any AI they do use into their workflow in a much subtler, less intrusive and less obviousoy braindead manner, so they don't end up on ANI with calls for CIR bans. Athanelar (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

They absolutely do. I regularly bring autopatrolled AI users to AINB. The less experienced an editor is, the less likely their use is obvious and hence the easier it is to detect them. But there is very much a regular corpus of experienced editors, which precisely because LLM gnomes get shouted at and obscured at every possible turn, nobody has the energy to try to push for sanctions against.

Misfires happen. I’m almost certain I have misfired a number of times. That’s why I always first leave a note on the talk page unless it’s blatantly G15-level obvious. In this particular case I also agree that dropping the stick would have been wise. It is, however, impossible to formulate that as a bright red line policy and nor would it be wise because AI editors are some of the world’s leading experts on sealioning. In fact, in this particular case I would be shocked if the user wasn’t consulting an LLM behind the scenes considering the title of this ANI thread.

in any case the solution to unblockables is not to block less newbies, it’s to block more policy-violating veterans who refuse to get the point. Fermiboson (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, for a certainty, the reliability of certain methods of detection (and in particular, the dichotomy between human and LLM detection) is a highly idiosyncratic phenomena. Some outputs are going to be more reliably caught by human agents and some by LLMs. Unfortunately though, basic limitations based on both informational paucity (most expressions in natural language simply do not contain enough flags for a high confidence determination, whatever the marketing for the tools say) and structural limitations of both the model and human pattern recognition, so whichever is better int eh aggregate, it's a real race to a mediocre first place. And yeah, we can hope for watermarking to help in some areas down the line, but so far those technologies have also been underwhelming, and wouldn't help us for the majority of our issues here.

So I think the solution here (and we have to acknowledge that this is not a case of solving the problem so much as mitigating it to the maximum extent practicable) is actually something that Wikipedia has a lot of experience with: crowdsourcing. Any one person's smell test is only going to get us so far, but the more eyes, the higher our average confidence level can become. It's highly imperfect, and we aren't exactly flush with spare volunteer hours, so it sucks to have this additional drain, but I'm at least more comfortable with ten people coming to a consensus using criteria that can be practiced and refined than I am with individual editors hounding one another because someone thinks something is fishy, but with very limited proof or even articulation of the suspicions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• I should note that Matteo.primavera06 was at 4RR on Bocconi University School of Law before it was locked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• I confirm the accusation, but they didn't edit the page, they deleted it entirely. How would you have behaved when faced with people who ruin your work with vague and meaningless accusations? Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Like an adult, hopefully, rather than edit warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'd behave within Wikipedia policy - one of our few, absolute bright-line policies - which you did not. The only reason you aren't blocked right now for violating 3RR is because the page was fully protected first, especially given your comment implying you'd do it again and thus the block would absolutely be preventative. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think reading WP:OWN would be instructive here -- I understand you're frustrated about what seems to be false allegations of AI-generated writing, but Wikipedia's other policies also apply, Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:G15 was mentioned above—not by me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  So it looks like one of the most significant remaining issues is regarding the large amount of incorrect/broken sources in the article.

  AI is the most frequent culprit of this (IMO >90%) so that's why it usually the first suspect, but if you aren't using AI to find your sources then this could indicate a more concerning issue with your understanding/ability to provide appropriate sourcing on articles.

  Returning to the evidence, can you explain how this happened? I noticed you replied above saying something about the format of CV's but I'm not sure how that would cause a nonexistent website URL.

  Can you please let us know why so many broken URL's were added, so we can make sure it doesn't happen again? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  The reason for the broken links is that I noticed that all the professors' pages had the same format, but some had hyphens, some didn't, and some had periods. So, in my Excel spreadsheet where I created the links to upload to the sources, I made an easily fixable error. I don't understand the alarmism, unless you're acting in bad faith. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Far from it, this is my first post to this discussion and I'm trying to explain why other editors may have had their concerns.

  I wanted to find out why there were so many problematic sources and thought it best to ask you directly before making any decisions.

  If you have a reasonable explanation, along with an understanding of why it happened and how to stop it from happening again, that resolves the matter as far as I'm concerned. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can you confirm you are reading the sources you are citing before you cite them? As an editor pointed out above, you linked to https://www.themisnetwork.eu/ . The the correct URL for Themis Network nowadays seems to be https://www.themis-network.org . I'm not sure if this is quite an LLM mistake as originally assumed. I see various pages like Facebook and Twitter to link to the .eu website. This is probably because it was once their website, . The problem is that it was turned into a redirect in 2020 to http://themisnetwork.rec.org/ . Then in mid 2021 it became a this domain is registered at alldomains.hosting page . In September 2021 it was in control of cybersquatters. (Not linking to this as it's very NSFW.) It probably died in late 2022. And I see no evidence it's existed since then. It's perfectly understandable if you took the old domain from somewhere. However since you were citing it, you should have noticed it was a dead domain when you checked it out to cite it. If you did and then looked further and found the correct website, can you explain how came to still cite the old one? Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Actually it's worse than thought. I didn't look that well initially at the themisnetwork.eu page. I just assumed it was about the same organisation. But it seems the themisnetwork.eu page was for some thing else "Themis is an informal regional network of national authorities responsible for natural resources management and protection, and for the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws". So you weren't even citing an older page for the same organisation. You were citing a page for something else completely. Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Frankly I don't understand how your explanation correlates when anything you did. When I look at this version, very few of the references are to university staff profile pages on the university website. Even the profiles that are cited are often somewhere other than the university website. So how does you generating URLs for them explain why many of the references seem invalid? And to be clear it's not just Themis, this link https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/diritto-comparato/ doesn't seem to work, it redirects to the main page. These https://ius.unibocconi.eu/clinical-activities and https://ius.unibocconi.eu/moot-court are 404. They're on the university site but not an instructor profile so your explanation doesn't work here. More 404 and not even on the university website https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/mediation/icc-international-mediation-competition/ and https://www.repubblica.it/speciali/istruzione/guide-universita/ and https://www.ilfoglio.it/economia/2017/08/09/news/guido-rossi-giurista-1514763 . This one https://www.comune.milano.it/aree-tematiche/sicurezza-e-polizia-locale/carceri 403s, maybe it just doesn't like me visiting from NZ but.... The instructor profile pages do often 404 but these aren't simply autogenerated with the same format. They are on a variety of different sites with different base URL formats hyphen usage aside https://www.eui.eu/people?id=eleanor-spaventa and https://www.eui.eu/people?id=stefano-liebman and https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/faculty-staff/marco-ventoruzzo and https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/people/academic-staff/items/rogerscatherine.html and https://law.tulane.edu/faculty/profiles/james-gordley This one is simply a link to a non working goverment site https://www.anpal.gov.it/ . I'm sure there are more so you really need a better explanation as to how come many of the sources you are citing are invalid URIs a few days after you checked them out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  This one https://bocconilegalpapers.org/ does work but I don't know if that's good for you. The website itself as per the title you gave when citing it is in Indonesian. This makes little sense for papers for an Italian University. I've read the page a bit with my limited understanding of Indonesian and I did not find any explanation for the Indonesian site. To my mind it's looks AI generated. There are weird spammy stuff for unrelated things on that page too and and . Perhaps someone made it and saw it was for an .it website and confused it with .id. Perhaps they wanted to spam the other stuff and thought making this fake website will help even if it's for something not Indonesian. (It may be the domain wasn't renewed so they took it over and wanted to keep it like it was relevant. ) I do not know. Whatever the case, when you looked at it, did you not wonder why it was in Indonesian and whether it was actually something you should be citing? You even gave the Indonesian title so surely you noticed although I don't see how your can miss it when checking it out. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  You may have missed it, but Matteo said that the references were created using Excel and artificial intelligence above. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did miss that, thanks. But they still claimed "CV pages" and many of the links are not to CV pages. And there remains the question of whether they are checking anything they are citing regardless how they generate the URIs. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't have time to properly look into their claim earlier and restricted myself to addressing their immediate AGF/ABF allegation, but you've done a great job in voicing my original concerns about the "CV" links & how that explanation tallies (or doesn't tally) with the edit history. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I really don't see any reason not to block at this time, except that they haven't edited for two days. If they come back and turn things around, fine, but if they continue to indicate that they can't work in a collaborative environment like this, there isn't much (if any) rope available. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have partially blocked them from Bocconi University School of Law which should resolve the issue. @Matteo.primavera06 please note that if you repeat this same behavior and issues on other articles, your block will be expanded. Please take onboard the feedback you've received here. Star Mississippi 15:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  "them" but what language do you speak? Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  English, obviously. The singular they is standard English. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  If an editor doesn't specify a gender on their account/user page, we will always use neutral pronouns by default - we say they/them because we don't know if you prefer he, she or they. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, not everyone does this: I know I adopted it as the default early in my time volunteering here, because there was more ambiguity on the average user's gender than in other online communities of smaller scales that I had interacted with. And aside from lowering the likelihood of incidentally misgendering someone, it just makes things much more simply. I'm also a big proponent for pushing back against early 20th century proscriptions on the use of gender-indefinite 'they'. But not everyone's ideolect is in the same place, and that's not always by conscious choice. Even in this community, which is probably at the leading edge of adopting these forms amongst English speakers, the pattern is not universal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still actively fighting the habit of using "he" by default, I used "they" as a child until my English Literature teacher nearly failed one of my assignments for doing that. Even all these decades later I'm still getting used to it! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which is something that every community member, no matter how strong a supoprter of the general sentiment of GENDERID and related principles of individual respect we may be, needs to remember: the brain actually stores and processes functors, including pronouns in a different fashion from noun phrases and other content lexemes. Once set in the plastic portion of a persons neurolinguistic development, it can be a difficult task to re-train your grammar--more difficult for some than others, based on age, length of time with a particular norm, number of languages spoken, and of course just the luck of the draw on the person's ability with language generally. Or, as your story demonstrates, other even more idiosyncratic factors influencing usage; there is a reason the formal linguistics term idiolect exists. And I'm not seeking to hand wave the reality of a significant number of people who just clearly won't make an effort because it is convenient way to justify intentional stonewalling. But I do think people frequently and substantially misjudge how often slow adoption of new norms is a personal choice, versus someone in transition. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely made a mistake in inserting the links as best I could. They weren't linked to the specific page, or some were broken due to the speed of insertion. If you want to block me, I honestly don't care; you've spent days without saying anything sensible. I'll upload more accurate photos to the links and make sure they all work. If you accept it, fine, otherwise, goodbye. Matteo.primavera06 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to clear something out: lawyers are in no way barred from using AI. So, "MP used AI" is in no way defamation, even assuming for the sake of argument that it would be a lie. Not every lie amounts to libel. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matteo.primavera06 - My messages above are the first time I spoke to you so I cannot have spent "days without saying anything sensible". And how does "the speed of insertion" explain broken links? Especially links like https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/mediation/icc-international-mediation-competition which look like they could be valid but are not. (I could perhaps understand links to the main page of a website can arise if the website is one which shows the URI as the main domain whatever part of it you visit.) It's not like you somehow cut part of the link. And you still haven't answered the key question. Did you read the pages you were citing? When you add links as sources, they're not there for fun. They mean you've checked out the link and you've confirmed it supports whatever it is you're citing hence why it should be very difficult to come up with so many broken links regardless of "speed of insertion" or anything else. As I understand it, you're a student at the university, therefore you should be well aware that citing sources means you read the sources at least in part & know they supports whatever it is you're writing. In fact, since it's a law school we're talking about here, citing sources and cases is something you're likely to be something you'll do throughout your career so I'd even more expect it's something you well understand. I'm sure your instructors will be equally concerned if you cite a case but that case doesn't seem to exist. And when they ask you why the cases you cited do not seem to exist, your only explanation is "made a mistake" and "speed of insertion" and mistakes made with Excel spreadsheets. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note that Matteo.primavera06 has made what sounds a lot like a legal threat on their talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nevermind any further hand-wringing over remaining issues or contemplation of channeling this user into more productive, non-POV-pushing avenues. We were already trying to work out how to to preserve this editor despite multiple concerns that were collectively significant enough to put us on the bubble of a block for WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI issues, and a LT of that particular wording leaves no realistic hope that this user is anything but an SPA here to push particular views on a particular subject, and is not capable to this project's rules or to acclimating to neutral, subject-disinterested editing in general. In short, I'd support an indef at this juncture. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I Support giving them what they want and converting the block to an indef given what I've seen in this discussion TarnishedPath^talk 08:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've given them a NLT warning. IMO if they do not withdraw their legal threat, they should be blocked. As always, it doesn't matter whether they have any legitimate case or chance of success. Nor whether they've sort of imposed a self-fulfilling prophecy where they only take action if we block them so technically an argument could be made unless we block them there's no clear threat. The putative chilling effect of such a comment is enough to justify a block until and unless the threat is withdrawn in full. (Indeed editors have been blocked over more unrealistic threats.) If they do withdraw the threat, IMO it's fine to just wait & see if they improve as much as it seems there's no real chance, but I'm not going to complain if someone does indef. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I see little benefit to the project to have this editor editing at this time. If they're not using LLMs to write content, then they're rather careless and sloppy, and that's a real problem too. And so is the legal threat, of course, though I do have to admit I'm a bit disappointed that a law student would conjure up such a low quality threat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  He might be a Yale law student. That would explain it. EEng 19:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think four days is long enough to give the editor a chance to remove their legal threat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm 50/50 since they've apparently quit Wikipedia and have been banned from the only article they had any interest in, on the other hand there has been continued personal attacks, bad faith when challenged (including against myself) and the vast amount of problematic sources that don't match their explanation gives me pause (how does adding a source quickly change the URL?)

  If they do ever come back, they are either not being honest about AI-use or have a fundamental problem with source verification - Nil's analysis is rather damning.

  Ah - as usual, once I write things out my thoughts become clearer - it seems I'm more on the side of indef than I originally thought. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Given your standing here as one of our biggest and best extenders of good-faith and helpers of people here, that says a lot, and is enough to tip my own waffling over the edge. I've indef'd per NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ~2026-34745-81

A temp user, ~2026-34745-81, has continuously added unsourced or poorly sourced information on the following articles: The Cat in the Hat (2003 film), List of works based on Dr. Seuss stories, and List of Warner Bros. Pictures Animation productions. All of the edits made by this user are regarding a supposed sequel to the 2026 animated Cat in the Hat film, which he has not provided a reliable source to, and I believe it falls under the disruptive editing behavioral guideline.

The following edits made by the user, sorted by article:

• The Cat in the Hat (2003 film)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:51 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:53 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:55 UTC (no edit summary provided)
• List of works based on Dr. Seuss stories
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:45 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:45 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:45 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 01:49 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 02:04 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 02:20 UTC (no edit summary provided)
• List of Warner Bros. Pictures Animation productions
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 02:10 UTC (no edit summary provided)
  • Revision as of 13 June 2026, 02:19 UTC (no edit summary provided)

It's clear to me (and hopefully to any member of staff that sees this) that the temp user in question is not here to help contribute to Wikipedia in any way. The user has also since been notified about the matter on their talk page. Multiplivision (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

From how I see it, I don't agree with this interpretation entirely. Reason being is that you warned them after 11 edits. They reverted your warning, but stopped. Then you restored the warning, which was correctly removed by another user. When that happened, they made two more edits before you warned them again. They re-took down your warning and proceeded to not make any additional edits. There hasn't been an additional edit since your second warning to stop, so I don't get why come here nearly an hour later saying that they are NOTHERE. (Do I think that they fully understand the citation issue? No, as they added a citation needed template to their edits. But they seem to be heeding your warning to them and potentially were confused about the warnings.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

Using TAIV I can see there is a continued pattern of reverted edits and previous warnings - TA-25 in particular has six (blanked) warnings. There are proxies so I'm not 100% certain if there are others, but these appear to be linked through TAIV, behaviour and overall subject matter:

• Special:Contributions/~2026-33975-25
• Special:Contributions/~2026-34745-81
• Special:Contributions/~2026-34851-85
• Special:Contributions/~2026-33839-20

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah. If there is more than one TA, and there is, then my prior comment is incorrect. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, but you'd have no way of knowing that so I figured it'd be helpful to show that this was a much longer-standing concern than at first glance. Another reason why this particular editor really needs to create an account. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:SUMEXPLAIN, "all edits should be explained," specifically through the use of the edit summary. I think the repeated behavior here shows that sanctions are appropriate. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All the TA's have been blocked on the 15th by ToBeFree with a note that they must create an account so they cannot evade scrutiny, I can see two new TA's have been generated, but they haven't made any edits. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake and Wikipedia: pages

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

FaviFake nominated WP:Guide to deletion (GTD) at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Wikipedia:Guide to deletion while it was listed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Using RfD implies that GTD's starting, stable state is a redirect, FaviFake's preferred outcome. While the nomination can be considered a relist – less of a violation of WP:INVOLVED (shortcut to WP:Administrators#Involved admins, policy) – it demonstrates FaviFake's carelessness toward Wikipedia processes and norms.

• GTD's history since 8 April 2026
• WT:Articles for deletion#Reorganising the page

1. 8 April FaviFake acknowledges learning of GTD (comment)
2. 9 April FaviFake merges GTD and WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructionsWP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions into WP:Articles for deletion
3. 11 April fgnievinski opposes the merge (comment)
4. 12 April ScrubbedFalcon supports the merge (comment)
5. 28 April I oppose the merge (comment) "−53,476 and −11,132 versus +12,991 and +2,257 is a huge decrease that is extremely difficult to review without direct diffs."
6. 11 May I contact FaviFake about his edit to WP:Deletion policy and mention my objection to the GTD merge
7. 24 May I revert after a few weeks with only one reply (supportive, from fgnievinski) and leave a note at the discussion (comment)
8. 24 May FaviFake reverts and replies (comment)
9. 24 May fgnievinski reverts and nominates at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
10. 12 June fgnievinski indicates openness to RfD (comment)
11. 12 June FaviFake redirects and nominates at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before comments from other participants

FaviFake was polite when I approached him with concerns about an edit (linked as the 11 May diff above), but I was unsure if my feedback was received.

Editors revert FaviFake's edits:

• FaviFake's Wikipedia: edits are frequently tagged as Reverted.
• WP:Deletion process history from April 2026 with examples of editors reverting FaviFake with explanatory edit summaries

Editors have raised concerns about FaviFake's editing:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199#Broader problems with FaviFake's editing (subsection under FaviFake's report of another user, September 2025) was archived without action.
• WT:Articles for deletion/Simplicial space – criticism from the AfD closer (June 2026)
  • WP:Articles for deletion/Simplicial space
  • WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive380#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplicial space

I have two desired outcomes:

1. Reset the GTD merge discussion. I think that WP:Requests for comment has the best chance of attracting participation, but WP:Requests for comment#What not to use the RfC process for points to WP:Merging instead.
2. FaviFake receives feedback about his editing.

Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Notification – Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Edits don't appear disruptive, the claim that their edits are tagged as reverted also isn't entirely true since most of their recent edits haven't been reverted. Malgosha (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems retaliatory. Not only FaviFake is disagreeing with you. While it may have been out of process, we're here now and there is no reason to overcomplicate things by trying to 'correct' it as if that's going to do anything.

Pinging @fgnievinski and @ScrubbedFalcon as involved parties. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake has something of a history of bold-editing pages in Wikipedia namespace, usually with no prior discussion at all. It goes back to about March 2025, although for the first three or four months their edits were mainly in the nature of spelling and grammar, before becoming wider in scope. They have been warned about it on their user talk page several times, but you won't find the warnings in any page archives, because there are none - FaviFake tends to delete the oldest threads from their user page once the number of threads exceeds one or two. But see for example Special:PermaLink/1312777040#September 2025, Special:PermaLink/1322362506#November 2025 and Special:PermaLink/1325175057#Mergers. I have made just five edits to that page, but several other people have each made plenty more comments. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate FaviFake's boldness and energy in editing to de-duplicate content across AfD and GtD. I just lament they seem to have some difficulty compromising. In this particular case, they could have achieved the same de-duplication by splitting/merging in the opposite direction (from AfD to GtD). Then automatically excepting/transcluding as much as necessary from one page into the other. They could have had 80% of their preferred outcome but by insisting on 100% they may end up with zero. In this collaborative work, flexibility is necessary. fgnievinski (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-21916-69 thanks for the ping. I don't have a ton of time to get into this today and I've been offline for a few days. At first glace this report seems like an overreaction, I also disagree to some extent with the way that some of the previous discussions are being presented. I do recognize that this isn't the first time that someone has reported Favi to an admin board, but I'm not sure that all of those reports have been fair (for example the latest one about the simplicial space merge seems to have arisen out of a misunderstanding and another editor using a maintenance template incorrectly). I'll try to get back to this in a day or two with a larger response if its still open then. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how a lack of consensus to implement a merge meant that the merge went ahead anyways and now FaviFake gets to keep reverting to restore it. Katzrockso (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding GTD, I am considering restoring the full page below the redirect to assist newer users arriving from {{AFD help}}, who are more likely to be confused by its current state. The glossary link to WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands is simply broken, as the section was removed. I believe this is allowed, per WT:Redirects for discussion#changing page during an ongoing rfd (June 2026). I acknowledge that the edit would be in the direction of my preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake responded by merging the Shorthands section (+7,315 bytes) to WP:Articles for deletion#Shorthands and replying at the RfD. That edit did not fix the problem while the RfD is ongoing, but fgnievinski implemented my suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

About a disruptive TA

~2026-33364-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently making disruptive edits and improperly removing content from pages, even after being warned multiple times. Malgosha (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Would suggest blocking the /24, as there's been a lot of the same abuse coming from different TAs. This might require 2 rangeblocks, as the user has been using 2 /24 ranges according to TAIP. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 19:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Malgosha it seems you've again forgotten to notify the TA of this ANI discussion about them :P -- InRRainbows Lets chat! 19:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops. Malgosha (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I just notified them. Malgosha (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks! InRRainbows Lets chat! 19:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I came across this TA doing RC patrol, the account is still vandalizing, this time at L. A. Ravi Subramanya. Not knowing that he was already reported here, I reported the account to AIV. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) 17:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

They've thankfully been blocked a few hours ago. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Do we still potentially need the rangeblocks or no? Just a question; I only started on Wikipedia about 3 months ago so there’s a lot still to learn :-) I know it doesn’t concern me, because I’m not an admin, but just wanted to double check. signed, A Random Hylian (Parry)(swing) 22:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably, there is a real chance that the anonymous user that was reported here might evade blocks using future TAs based on their behavior that suggests WP:NOTHERE. WereWolf370 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I blocked the current TA for block evasion (of a prior TA block) and, after reviewing the IP contribution history, blocked an IPv4 /22 range for three months. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

FJZAJV: Persistent addition of unsourced content after warning

Looking at the edit history of FJZAJV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), almost all of their edits are unsourced, and large swathes of them have been reverted. They were warned by @AndreJustAndre: about this back in August 2025: , but have continued to add unsourced content as recently as two days ago . They need a firm warning from an admin about adding unsourced content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The user in question has not edited in 5 days now. Hopefully they take the advice of .nhals8 to heart; I will try to keep an eye out. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Stavru: Edit warring, NOTHERE

Despite only having made less than 70 edits, Stavru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has already accrued a rather impressive list of talkpage warnings. In their short career editing Wikipedia, they've engaged in tendentious unsourced pov-pushing , repeated edit warring against consensus (see and ), as well as baselessly accusing people who disagree with them of "vandalism" . Seems to me they are not compatible with consensus-based nature of Wikipedia editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who have previously interacted with Stavru: @TarnishedPath:, @Czello:, and @Bluethricecreamman:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think i replied once to them. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 08:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Their replies here seems to suggest they are learning and per WP:NOOB they are given additional leeway.

think they do need to WP:LISTEN and not go foruming on talk page or utilize non policy based arguments, id say lets wait and see if they improve over time?

the edit warring is a lot though. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 08:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

So you would wish for me to be more talkative, stop doing edit wars and more open with consensus. I am willing to stop and I mean it; especially if people are open and talkative.

If there is any question or concern, speak to me, I listen in good faith, I am willing to learn and be on this site in good faith. Stavru (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Stavru I also noticed that you sometimes remove large swathes of content from articles without proper explanation. Malgosha (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with that, I did it especially before when I was more naive about wikipedia, I deeply apologize for it, when i didn't knew even the talk page existed and just thought I could edit like that.

Yes, I had made some modification on some articles relatively recently, I'm open for discussion in a case to case basis if something specifically concerns you about an edit I did.

My belief today is that I should't alter articles without consensus and prior chat to the talk page and I apologize for past actions, what I ask in return and haven't really got it is actually listening in me, a lot in my opinion, are dogmatic (I mean they aren't open for alteration, even if I have sources and deep reasoning behind) or they have some ideological biases. To be clear i don't mean I would always win the consensus, there will be disagreemnts and I ma say something truly wrong, but i would expect middle ground, the will to listen to me and first of all and most importantly intelectually honest discussions (yes i am not the one that will say what's intelectual or not, that's a collective process, but there is some common sense on what such a discussion is). Stavru (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

One thing you have to be cognizant of is that sometimes, there won't be a middle ground. Sometimes, a strong consensus will be against you, and the consensus will be to not move an iota towards your position on an issue. Sometimes, it will feel like it's unfair or even intellectually dishonest. One of the hardest things to learn on Wikipedia, which is one of the most important lessons, is that one will frequently not get their way, sometimes be very unhappy with consensus, and then need to defend that consensus while it is in place. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think in your case, you should understand that removing or blanking long standing text should generally not be done without getting consensus from talk page User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 08:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ONUS. If you want to add material to an article, it's your responsibility to convince other editors that it should be there. If you re-add unsourced content after it has been reverted by another editor, without trying to build a consensus, then you are the one edit warring, not them. Amatmilen (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree and I promise this is how I'll work from now on, if it doesn't pass by the consensus I'll not push it. Stavru (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Note. Stavru is still engaging in blatant editorialising and synthesis: see this latest edit to the Trillionaire article. Note the absurd source used for a supposedly definitive statement in the first section, and the equally absurd way the opinions of two individuals are misattributed to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Given that the edit was made after the assurances above, further action is clearly required. I'd suggest an article-space block, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I just saw the edit you provided a link to and that is actually insane, the edit is WP:SYNTH, which is considered original research. WereWolf370 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It isn't just synthesis, it is, in the later section, a clear and unambiguous misrepresentation. The document cited is published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (more specifically, by the National Library of Medicine), but with a clear disclaimer at the top of the article which states that "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health". I fail to see how anyone could possibly miss such an obvious statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This is disappointing given that I had provided them a link to our NOR policy in a discussion at Talk:Trillionaire#Clean up and suggested they read it, and that they stated "I'll do seriously read it, thank you". TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

NCBI isn't even a publisher, but merely a database of academic journals. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice is published by Springer, so the edit in question was simply illiterate. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if English is their first language? Grammar problems, not following (understanding?) policies after they've been pointed out and repetition of the same errors makes me wonder whether we're dealing with an enthusiastic editor who's doing their absolute best, but might not have the ability to edit English Wikipedia competently.

If they've read through the policies as they've been asked to do, it appears that they're not able to fully comprehend them. This might also explain their misunderstanding of NCBI, and why their edit to the Trillionaire article included sentences like Though comparing wealth between wealth made from corporate companies on the west and money from poor nations with less purchasing power is innacurate.

I don't doubt that they're trying their hardest and really want to do well, unfortunately they continue to have difficulty despite that effort.

@Stavru, may I please ask whether English is your first/native language? If it isn't, have you thought about working on a Wikipedia project in your own language? Non-English Wikipedias need volunteers much more than we do, and I'm sure you can do some great work there. You can find the right one for you at List of Wikipedias, or let us know your preferred language and we can get you a direct link. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

My main interest is editing, enriching and improving English wikipedia with no plans to end nor to decrease that, that's where the most views are, that's the global wikipedia, that's the "front page", that's the reliable place people get informed in, even non-natives rather the English wikipedia for inforrmation and the internet is mostly English after all.

Yes, I speak Greek, and I was born there, but my English is on a native level, and I use it very comfortably, and I'm able to use it to express any idea I have well, basically as comfortably as I do with my Greek.

I guess, if I make a mistake, editors can fix that, and also a lot of natives make mistakes in English, and some are worse than I do.

So yes, my passion and interest are enriching and keep enriching Wikipedia in English for the reasons above.

Best wishes, Stavro. Stavru (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If you persist in making 'mistakes' that involve grossly misrepresenting sources in order to promote your own personal opinions, you may very well find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't plan to do this, especially from now on and yes I did bad edits on the past. I really want to use Wikipedia on good faith, not egoistically nor immaturely and under the rules which I try to learn. I don't want to be banned after all. Stavru (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to have to 'learn rules' in order to understand that you can't claim that an entire government organisation holds an opinion on a topic while citing a source attributed only to two individuals, and with an explicit disclaimer on the page stating that the website hosting the document doesn't necessarily endorse the views in the document. This isn't just a 'Wikipedia rule', it is basic common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

if I make a mistake, editors can fix that

No, if you make a mistake and others draw it to your attention, it is polite to fix it yourself. I've already discussed that with you. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I'll just be more careful and informed in grammar, you had said to me before it's rude, I did meant it more on if I wasn't aware of the mistake, but even then I get what you mean now. Stavru (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

In case it helps to have someone else rephrase things - whilst Wikipedia is a website, it's still an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are complicated.

Non-native English speakers are more than welcome to edit, but they need to have a very good grasp of the English language to do so.

They need to be able to do a lot of very complex things that usually need a good knowledge of the different nuances of English.

For example, a Wikipedia editor needs to:

1. Understand and follow Wikipedia's policies & guidelines
2. Be able to properly assess whether a source meets those policies (e.g. is it known for being biased, is it promotional or using overly-flattering language, is it AI-generated, what's the overall context of the piece?)
3. Judge whether a specific source contributes towards a subject's notability/verifies a specific claim
4. Be able to clearly and concisely explain the source's claim to the reader, in a neutral and unbiased manner.

I'm afraid that you've had problems in quite a few of these areas, problems which aren't easily solved just by trying harder. You promised that you'd read the original research policy ; despite only just having read the policy, you still made this edit afterwards, violating the policy quite significantly.

In addition, that edit just doesn't make sense in English (#4), you were repeating some words and using others in the wrong order, to the point that they lost all meaning and I'm still not quite sure what you were trying to say. That's not something that can be fixed by reading up on policies, that's a problem with the English language.

You've also been unable to accurately summarise what a source was saying (#2), ended up inserting your own reasoning and misrepresented the source (#1), weren't able to judge who the publisher of the piece was, as a result you couldn't properly determine whether they were a reliable/appropriate source (#3).

To reiterate, I think you're already trying very hard and I know you're not doing this on purpose. You write in English really well and can communicate with us easily; whilst you have a good conversational level of English, I don't think you are able to write at an encyclopedic-level. There are plenty of native-English speakers who can't write at an encyclopedic-level, I'd go so far as to say that a large part of many English-speaking countries would find it hard.

Please understand that were all volunteers, we work on Wikipedia in our own personal spare time because it's fun.

Fixing someone else's mistakes isn't fun.

It's also not reasonable (or fair) to expect other editors to clean up after your mistakes when they could be improving articles or doing anything else they prefer to do.

There's also a very high risk that more mistakes will slip through the net - you won't have an experienced editor following you around Wikipedia checking your work; your past mistakes were only found by chance when someone else happened to come across them. If we know that you are having trouble in multiple different areas of English Wikipedia, perhaps your time might be better served editing Greek Wikipedia instead? This is why I made my original suggestion.

We have lots of volunteers, but if we spend more time fixing your edits than you spend making them, or if they are so unsuitable that they have to be completely reversed, what benefit is there to Wikipedia? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 12:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

"There are plenty of native-English speakers who can't write at an encyclopedic-level, I'd go so far as to say that a large part of many English-speaking countries would find it hard".

This 100% TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that whatever reassurances Stavru may give, they've shown no ability to understand the problems they're causing. For example despite already replying above where Andy pointed out the synthesised in the Trillionaire article when TarnishedPath questioned them on the article talk page their defence was they thought it only applied to articles which suggests at the time they still didn't understand what they did in the article is synthesise. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Im confused by stavrus response. Yes stavru is right it only applies go article space, but they did the synth insertion into article space? They acknowledged they knew it applies to article which is why they inserted it into the article?

this is a non explanation to me, and based on what ive seen may suggest WP:CIR will need to be invoked if they cant learn User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that they're not able to fully understand policies and feedback, which means that this cycle will just continue unabated. Here's a brief overview of the feedback they've had so far - apologies for the length, whilst there are few edits, context is important:

• 5 January: Reintroduces "ignorant" to Youth rights, with OR and lack of sources.
• 13 May: Unexplained removal of text and source from Second-wave feminism.
• 14 May: Added OR to Youth rights, National Youth Rights Association & Men's rights movement Multiple sources removed from Homophobia with the explanation Heterophobia'Heterophobia' redirects here. Youth rights is reverted due to misrepresentation of sources and WP:SYNTH.
• 15 May: Edit war to keep OR in Men's rights movement & Youth rights (including the word "ignorant") Warned on Talk page re. disruptive editing, edit warring and unexplained removal of content.
• 30 May: Reinstates edit. Warned with notice and bespoke message
• 2 June: Continues edit war then finally visits Talk:Men's rights movement to discuss edits. Removes text and source without explanation. Warned again re. edit warring.
• 3 June: Is advised that there should be a reason for removing large swathes of text. Removes text again, stating the reason is on the Talk page - the only explanation there is I've made edit's which their primary purpose is to remove the biases I see on this article. Goes back to Youth rights and reinstates edit. Is warned about OR and NPOV, replies I just ask you when I publish that edit, to view it think if it's okay for wikipedia and not bluntly delete it just because it's from me, and from my side I'll make a better edit, the best I can.
• 10 June: Edits Grokipedia to remove large swathes of information and multiple sources as "outdated/non-neutral", introduces multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Warned. Goes to Talk page to explain edits but is reverted in the meantime, reinstates preferred version and is warned again re. edit warring. Continues discussion on Talk page.

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

These were wrong behaviors, some extremely awful, and definetly contrdictory to Wikipedia's policies but they are past actions either for a few days, or of months.

As I said I really don't intend to do the same mistakes and way of editing this moment, I understand the suspicion, I really do, I would be too in your position. See my history after a week from now or see me after a month from now, you will not see major violations nor bad faith actions. Stavru (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Is Grokipedia relevant to Wikipedia? I was under the impression that it was an unrelated site (although it clearly scrapes Wikipedia) Catboy69 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Grokipedia is also AI-generated as the content there is "fact-checked" by the AI chatbot Grok. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know but I try to learn and act with good faith, I really do, I really tried. I just didn't know this applied to the talk pageas well and I don't plan to use the talk page non-cited in that fashion. Stavru (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

There are some good points I want to address for the part of the article where you speak about editing, I really respect the work you are all doing. Yes, we all do it because we love and for free, I should have been more empathetic and concious we are all like that here, I really really don't want to be a burden, I want to be a genuine contributor on Wikipedia, I should be more careful both folllowing the policies and also my grammar, so I help you all and don't take joy from your passion.

I still don't plan to end or slow down on English Wikipedia, but I'll indeed try my edits to be genuine contributions and improvements and not chores for you. Stavru (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah the question follows is this a person interested more in knee jerk culture war edits, or doing actual improvements? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 10:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

When I was less informed and less well thought I used to be on this I'll not lie to hide my past. But now I am interested in actual improvements in articles and based on conseusus and following the Wikipedia's rules, I am willing to change. I don't have these intentions anymore, I want to be here in good faith. Stavru (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

… but you did these edits days ago? What evidence is there of actual improvements in nonculture war articles? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The truth is my will to change is relatively recent, as for the articles, the truth is generally my interests fall in to politics that's why I am more drawn to them, but I don't intend doing ny inapropriate behavior adressed on this thread. Stavru (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

You also have to adhere to WP:NPOV when making changes to articles as violating this compromises the neutrality of Wikipedia. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying all this on ani while you did those edits to trillionaire makes me believe this upcoming comment less.

Trolling fellow editors is fast way ticket to getting sanctioned. Actions speak louder than empty words. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks by ~2026-26275-95

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

---

~2026-26275-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Multiple personal attacks (). They were already blocked temporarily for vandalism a month ago, I think they should be permanently blocked. @Materialscientist, Muboshgu, Pyrrhic victor, FantasticWikiUser, and SuperPianoMan9167: pinging involved editors. Streetr4 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanted TPA to be removed as well as an indef a while ago, but it seems this hasn't hallend. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 06:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This should've been an indef in April. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Hew Mun Weng

Hi everyone. As can be seen through the warnings and shorter blocks on their Talk page, Hew Mun Weng (talk · contribs) has a history of disruptive editing. In my view, some of their changes are constructive – this is not a case of WP:CIR. But their disruptive edits in combination with an inability or refusal to communicate, possibly caused by WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, causes trouble to other editors. In two of their recent edits, they removed sources from table leaving them without any inline citations at all: 10 June, today.

We need a way of getting them to understand that WP:communication is required. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1214#Hew Mun Weng and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1215#Hew Mun Weng with no action taken.

I agree that some of their edits are positive (e.g. this which I noticed the other day and was very impressed with), but the complete lack of communication is a serious issue, and their recent trend of deleting references from articles is very concerning. GiantSnowman 12:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

An article-space block is the generally-preferred method when other reasonable attempts fail. It would seem entirely justified here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that until we get some communication. GiantSnowman 20:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above and that a block is warranted if there is simply no communication. Competence is required. Jay-GH 06:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also supporting this, they have had multiple notices now, they should at some level be aware (or told) that they are obliged to respond when they get that many notices/requests to communicate. Either an article space block or a topic ban might be warranted? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from the article space. Any admin is free to lift the block should they be convinced that the issues outlined above have been satisfactorily resolved and that the issue would not recur. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Serial personal attacks by TA

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

---

• ~2026-34818-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Talk:Alfred Kinsey: WP:PA (serial). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: I am an uninvolved editor who has been following the dispute on Talk:Alfred Kinsey. While the reported temporary account did indeed engage in egregious personal attacks and harassment, the reporting editor, tgeorgescu, has also repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by actively escalating the conflict.

  Specifically, tgeorgescu has:

  • Directly called another editor a "simpleton".
  • Used highly combative and patronising language, such as "Let me give you a reading lesson, pal" and "Put up or shut up."
  • Used offensive slurs to describe political/scientific opponents.

  While the harassment targeted at the reporting editor is completely unacceptable, their own retaliatory incivility has severely worsened the situation Sir Nuttingham (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

AKA:

• ~2026-34800-32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ~2026-34680-70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for a month. Sir Nuttingham, there's a lot of text on the page, and when I looked at random at 10 edits by tgeorgescu, I saw nothing objectionable. Please supply diffs, don't leave all the work to admins. Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC).

  Yup, that was mostly language from four years ago. I have become much milder meanwhile. "Simpleton" was phrased as a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  heres some of those specific comments for posterity, simpleton remark, put up or shut up, let me give you a reading lesson pal, but they are indeed all about 4 years old and im not sure theyre relevant to the discussion at hand or reflective of tgeorgescu's current behavior as i havent read the entire enormous talk page. InRRainbows Lets chat! 15:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm entirely indifferent to four-year-old diffs. Did you not notice the timestamps, Sir Nuttingham? (It happens, so don't worry.) Bishonen | tålk 16:24, 14 June 2026 (UTC).

  Just for clarity the simpleton remark is only about 2 days old . That said it was not 'Directly called another editor a "simpleton".'. The 'put up or shut up' also was only about 2 days ago . I do not think that either of these in isolation or together are enough to be a concern. Notably while put up or shut up is perhaps not the most civil way to say things, it is obviously a common idiom and in wikipedia terms, it is true that editors need to either present the reliable sources they believe support what they want to add without WP:OR or stop posting about the matter. Note that the 'Let me give you a reading lesson, pal"' was over 3 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  ah shoot my mistake! thanks for correcting InRRainbows Lets chat! 16:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  The discussions are fairly confusing chronologically because the TA resurrected/joined two of them after 3 years, and even added a comment in between an old outdent and another comment. Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  gotcha, that squares then. InRRainbows Lets chat! 16:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  To be entirely fair, WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP exists and has since 2012, so, yeah. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• tgeorgescu's behaviour on the page has been unacceptable for a number of years. It is understandable that arguing with other users who are reluctant/unable to cite their viewpoints properly can be frustrating, but an experienced editor should know better than to throw around accusations of homophobia without stronger evidence than that which is present.

Using the terms, "paranoid rant", "imaginary voices existing infracranially" "simpleton (these direct WP:PA) and "mental retardation" is highly problematic, as is the attempt to write off very respectable British source, Channel 4's Secret History, as fringe because he doesn't like the content. tgeorgescu also constantly wants to turn the discussion into a conversation about someone called Reisman, who nobody on the page has attempted to cite, which is a form of strawmanning that seems to have been going on for 4 years.

There is also an RfC so unbelievably malformed that I was amazed that tgeorgescu, an editor I know to have great experience and breadth of knowledge of our procedures, could have thought for a second this was appropriate. The opening statement of the RfC is worth quoting in full: My claim is that pushing unsubstantiated allegations (conspiracy theories) about Kinsey being an associate of pedophiles should be treated as a de facto expression of homophobia. Agree or disagree with such claim?

tgeorgescu is an editor that seems to have a problem on this particular topic. The first diff above, containing direct implications of another user having schizophrenia merely for posting an entirely reasonable expression of concern around the article's lack of focus on Kinsey's use of incredibly disturbing material collected from paedophiles, seems to me to be enough for a block. Luckily, it was several years ago and so not an ongoing problem. However, it seems to me that tgeorgescu needs to stop editing this talk page, they are rarely WP:CIVIL and frequently veer into personal attacks.

TLD tgeorgescu is a good editor who is editing one talkpage very badly. They need a break, I propose a pageblock for a year.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On a quick read of the talk page I don't see anything untoward from tgeorgescu, but simply repeated calls for statements to be reliably sourced as they should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The RFC is also a few years old. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, infracranially is not mine (). And a documentary existing only as a pirated YouTube capture is a weak source.

The problem with the documentary is that they did not have evidence. They hoped that by opening the archives, evidence will become available. Which is again weak as a source. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, the "infracranially" quote is not yours, as others have noted, the history of that page is insanely complicated.

The documentary 'is a reliable source, and the actual claims that various users have asked to have included are in it. Part of the problem here has been you were attacking people for wanting to introduce claims (like the suggestion Kinsey was a nonce or the introduction of the opinion of someone called Reisman) they simple did not call for. But let's not get too far onto the topic of content.

@Phil Bridger: I would strongly suggest that this is an ongoing problem, the last incidents of a personal attack on this page "simpleton", was a couple of days ago. Some commitment to not use language intended to disparage the mental abilities of users who tgeorgescu disagrees with would be welcome. In addition, a commitment to engage with the arguments that others are making rather than ones they are not might be useful.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

disparage the mental abilities of users—speaking of Wikipedians, I only did that once, and got me blocked for two days. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On that talkpage you use the term "paranoid rant" to describe something that in no way was a paranoid rant. You also said this two days ago So: do you regard yourself as a simpleton, or do you regard yourself as loving science? That decides your interpretation of the documentary. That is clearly saying that people like myself and the user you were addressing, who consider a documentary broadcast as part of the well-respected Secret History series to be reliable, are simpletons. These are personal attacks which disparage the mental abilities of others. You must know we aren't allowed to do stuff like that. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

From Google AI: "It often refers to someone who is gullible, naive, and easily deceived. [...] Innocence: Unlike the word idiot, which strictly means stupid, simpleton occasionally carries a tone of harmless innocence or lack of worldly experience." tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

IMHO even with that definition the word is widely going to be interpreted as an insult, especially given your phrasing. InRRainbows Lets chat! 18:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, so you are still arguing that the user in question and myself are "simpletons"?Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, by googling "simpleton slur" (without the quote marks), there aren't many results. So, perhaps I should be excused for not knowing that it is a slur. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, your position is that it is completely fine to call someone you disagree with a "simpleton" on talkpages and you will continue to do so? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I won't repeat it. I didn't know it is offensive. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much appreciated. I would avoid any speculation or insinuation regarding either intelligence or mental health of other users, no matter what individual words are used. Suggesting somebody is an idiot without using the word "idiot" is just as offensive and hurtful as stating it outright. Genuine competence issues should be handled carefully in accordance with WP:CIR, otherwise your opinion on other people's intelligence or mental state isn't going to be helpful.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Besides, Reisman wasn't a Wikipedian. So, paranoid rants wasn't about another Wikipedian. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

And I offered WP:RS for my claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I think this is another indication of the problem. You are absolutely entitled to describe Reisman as making a paranoid rant, but nobody on that page, not even you, had mentioned Reisman when you said it. The only logical interpretation was that you were describing the IP's comment as a paranoid rant. I now accept that this was not your intention, but it is a demonstration of why I felt you should stay away from that page. You are a good editor, but you jumped down somebody's throat over nothing there, because you constantly approach that talkpage in combat mode. Pages that make me feel like that, I just stay away from. It would probably do you good too.

Anyway, given tgeorgescu has agreed to avoid mental-health/intelligence based rhetoric and has clarified that the "paranoid" comment was not aimed at another user, I withdraw my suggestion of a page ban.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I get the impression, given the vehemence of the language used by both sides, that Kinsey has been picked on by one side of the culture wars. Is that right? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, but here is the paradox: economically I'm right-wing. And socially, I think the state should not seek to intervene in free cultural change. That would be old-fashioned Republican. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think tgeorgescu's promise to avoid terms such as these is sufficient to close this. I think the two-way heated discussion is a mitigating factor (not an excuse, just a mitigating factor), and while tgeorgescu speaks excellent English (and probably better than they think), connotation, especially with lesser used words, can really trip up excellent non-native English speakers at times. Since I think the problem is clearly understood now, anything more would be punitive rather than preventative, I feel. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. His English is so good that it can be easy to forget that he is not a native speaker. And I really don't feel up to fighting a culture war this evening. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Bishonen:, I was going to close this, but a quick check shows that I have blocked the IP for a month - I don't see any block. Did something fail to go through? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, I meant to block the underlying IP (which I believe I'm not supposed to mention here) for a month, but it looks like it either didn't go through, or I failed to actually submit it. Done now, thanks for catching it. Would you like me to tell you by e-mail what the IP was, to make sure we're on the same page? Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC).

  It's all good, but thanks for the offer. Glad it's sorted out! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Block for multiple TAs

Hello everyone!

Please block the following TAs:

~2026-20752-92, ~2026-21641-15, ~2026-22355-23 and ~2026-22158-55 see Special:diff/1359328083. Wassim^talk 17:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Underlying IP blocked to stop current disruption while someone else can deal with the TAs EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir,

Thanks! Wassim^talk 17:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

n.b., this thread stemmed from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Looney Tunes Man which has now been closed. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

user Constrayevan

Constrayevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Is adding unsourced BLP regarding an arrest this edit after being blocked for similar reasons here Adakiko (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Also on Draft talk:GhettoRomani (first edit). To a lesser extent On Draft:Yvngxcoco: Damari started accusing marckwithdat of...Adakiko (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm tempted to remove all unsourced content (which is all content) from those. I'd better not because I'm about to go to bed. I'll leave it to someone in a different timezone to decide. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked from articlespace for BLP issues. It looks like this has simply moved the problem to draftspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Having looked at their response to the block, and then their continuing unsourced BLP violations in draftspace, this needs to be converted to a full indefinite block. @DoubleGrazing: who placed the current pblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) This case should also be brought to the stewards because it involves cross-wiki abuse. WereWolf370 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping. I hesitate to upgrade this to a full block myself, given that they're already accusing me of hounding. But anyone who believes a sitewide block, or indeed global sanction, is warranted, please feel free to action – no objection from me! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

    I think there might be a need for a global lock or block because being blocked on two separate wikis indicates cross-wiki abuse. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned on their talk page a couple of weeks ago that I think this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colassww/Archive. I blocked them on the Simple English Wikipedia as we seem to have enough evidence there. Unfortunately, here, my evidence is weaker. There’s some overlap with directly editing about the same people like Tana. Overall, though, it’s more general evidence like them focusing on these non-notable SoundCloud rappers, and the poor grammar and talk page responses. That latter part of evidence is more obvious on the SEW as they created more pages there and, as an admin, I can view those pages. I’ll probably spend some time in the next week or two to make a stronger case for the connections here on English Wikipedia; I just don’t have the personal free time to do that in the next days. CountryANDWestern (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Grobe0ba reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

• Grobe0ba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disruptive editing; falsely accusing User:RingtailedFox of vandalism. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw Grobe0ba's edit history and they are using Twinkle for malicious purposes. WereWolf370 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Grobe0ba's conduct is clear-cut harassment, compounded by trying to alter the deletion discussion logs. I note that RingtailedFox appears to be targeted by people who are upset by their nomination of Dn42 for deletion. This must stop. I've left a warning for Grobe0ba. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RingtailedFox hasn't done themself any favors by reporting a participant at the AfD to AIV, and this all appears to be the result of an off-wiki dispute in which RingtailedFox was involved. Everybody needs to take a step back and let the AfD run its course. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm showing considerable restraint here. I'm only responding in kind to what I've been given by Ellenor, Grobe0ba, Mark22k and others. I've been debating on whether or not to nominate Dn42 for deletion for a while due to its inherent lack of notability, and Ellenor's admission that they're freaking the hell out over losing their primary source of advertisement (Wikipedia is NOT your advertising service!) further proves my point.

Its insanely immature and toxic community and their antics to people either accepting their offers for help (which they hate offering), or politely disagreeing with them are not to be admired.

RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Everybody, including you with this response, looks bad. Take a step back and let the AfD run its course. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't trust the AfD to go fairly, though. my trust in others is less than zero these days, and their behaviour is a perfect example of why. if they honestly wanted to calm things down, they have to stop hounding me over it. they're just bullies who picked on the wrong person.

I honestly don't see how this makes me look bad. I look bad for.. defending myself? Telling bullies to stop harassing me? that, no, using wikipedia as the internet's billboard and trying to build notability after the fact, is contrary to how things are done at WP...? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, Grobe0ba courtesy vanished after all of this, I respect their courtesy vanishing, I just think their behavior before that was disruptive. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

They picked on the right person, because they got a rise out of you, which was exactly their intent. Do not respond to trolls. Remember that when a baby bird screams for attention for its owner, and eventually the owner snaps and screams back, all that does is teach the bird that screaming gets it attention. It's the same thing with trolls: when you respond to them "defending yourself", they win. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the courtesy vanishing a bit inappropriate here? This is clearly an editor currently under scrutiny. Now they have the ability to start a new account and voluntarily disclose their old account after the ANI has petered out with no action. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger There is clearly some weirdness going on at that AFD and article history which could probably use some experienced eyes. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, because letting people harass you without resistance means you win... give me a break. Ignoring them doesn't work. Not sure if you're lying to me, or yourself, but i see through it either way. You're smarter than this, Bushranger... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 08:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to take a breath and step away from the keyboard for a minute. I was in agreement with you but you've decided to misread my comment and call me a liar. I pinged Bushranger to suggest he might like to take a closer look at the article because you've seemingly correctly identified that it probably doesn't belong here. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe i called anyone a liar. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 08:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

You said Bushranger is either lying to you or themselves Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if you're lying to me, or yourself, but i see through it either way. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ringtailedfox seems to be speaking to Bushranger not you despite the indenting although I agree with others they aren't doing themselves any favours Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm responding to Bushranger. I'm stating my disagreement on "ignoring the trolls always works, guys!". sorry, but i know from experience, ignoring them fuels them, since they can harass you in peace, without having to be interrupted or respond to you telling them to stop or go away. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 08:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said that you haven't helped anything with your responses. A lot of comments are not going to help keep the article because they outline no policy based reasons for it, I think only one talked about coverage in sources. It's fairly common we get these in AFDs which receive outside attention. Any experienced can see this and they will be ignored by any closer. Your dispute with members of the team behind the software is also largely irrelevant and off-topic except if there's evidence of retaliation or other inappropriate reasons for the nomination. This means everyone needs to stop talking about it. If it's felt any of the comments crossed a line they should have been brought here not responded to. Otherwise they should have been ignored since that puts the person responding also fault for using the AfD for something other than it was intended. Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm no going to revert it but I feel the closure was a mistake. We often successfully deal with way more canvassed participants than this on AfDs of something of more general interest that blow up on social media or are talked about by someone with a high profile. And as I said most of those keep comments are going to be just ignored by any closer as they don't mention any policy based reason for a keep. Almost none of them mentioned sources or anything related to GNG or other reasons to keep. The only semi unusual part of this is how personalised it all was. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would support a close based on the nomination itself not really articulating a policy based reason for deletion. More news articles would seem to add to GNG rather than take away from it and AFD isn't cleanup and none of this was dealt with in the opening statement or subsequent comments. The block also prevent them fixing these shortcomings. Regardless of the wisdom of it, if someone wants to open an AFD right now with a proper nomination reasoning IMO they should be allowed even if canvassing resumes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is related to the recent hype about some AI slopper trying to disrupt the project and being shown the door. sapphaline (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

And yet again we learn that nominating an article for deletion right after some big incident happened to its subject is a bad decision, because the nomination will inevitably descend into canvassing and flame and get some people hurt. Maybe we should advise against doing this in some policy or guideline. sapphaline (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RingtailedFox has unfortunately been blocked for 72hrs, so he won't be able to respond to this thread until it expires.

Re. P&G's, there is an essay that explains this a little and is quoted quite often - see WP:RUSHDELETE. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This issue is unrelated to the current hype. IMHO, it's an escalation of a fight RingtailedFox had with multiple DN42 members on the IRC channel. ~2026-35038-54 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel the TA has a sort of point here. I mean I don't know whether they're quite right in that we have no idea based on on-wiki evidence (please do not bring off-wiki evidence in to this per WP:OUTING etc) whether RingtailedFox even knew of the network before the recent news. Their comment at the AFD seems to suggest they did although it isn't 100% clear. If the news is what drew RingtailedFox to the network then sapphaline's point still holds. That's a fairly irrelevant aside though.

Since either way, if it is true that RingtailedFox was in a dispute with operators of the DN42 network before they prodded the article then prodding it and especially nominating it for deletion was a mistake IMO. Even if they had been thinking of nominating it before the dispute, the only evidence we have for this is AGF. And while RingfailedFox may genuinely believe this, people can easily fool themselves into thinking they would have done something they wouldn't have. And more importantly it's simply a bad look to be nominating something when you've had an off-wiki dispute with them. (I don't think we need to get too much into the network vs operators & moderators etc.)

We've definitely dealt with this before. Leave it for someone without the history. There can be obvious exceptions e.g. if you editing an article but were called out for it and you responded, then the community will generally ignore that since the off-wiki dispute was started based on on-wiki activity (even if not prodding) and we don't want third parties being able to stop editors working just by attacking them off-site.

The biggest issue though is as I said above. RingtailedFox's nomination is IMO very poor. They didn't properly articulate a policy based reason for deletion, indeed what they said almost seems to be in opposition to what we'd expect from WP:GNG. (And also go against WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.) There might be reasons they can make all this fit together but they did not do so. Perhaps unsurprisingly when they're suggesting more sources would not help, they did not give any indication of doing WP:BEFORE.

Further while it has been a while, IMO it is fine to consider comparisons with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libera Chat which does seem to have some concerning similarities. It sounds a lot like they got into dispute with various people involved in the respective projects then nominated the articles for deletion.

However while some of the early comments in the recent AFD weren't too bad (although I do wonder about the outing aspect), it quickly degenerated including the nonsense that started this thread. This means feeling some sympathy for the atrocious way RingtailedFox was treated, we IMO started to miss how poor RingtailedFox's behaviour in this seems to have been. While they were justifiably blocked for the extremely offensive comment they made, I think there's a wider issue here.

Although for anyone from the "other side" paying attention, note that the Libera Chat is a far better example of how things should have gone down. Regulars pointed out the flaws in the AfD and it failed, not all the other nonsense which almost meant we missed RingtailedFox's contributions to the current situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked through that AfD, good grief. The TA is right; no matter what the other parties involved might have done, RTF's conduct there is utterly atrocious. They're fortunate to only be blocked for 72 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

RTF is very fortunate actually, they would've likely been indeffed if the admin who blocked them was stricter. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Serious accusation by User:Tamzin against User:Levivich

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

---

At Wikipedia:WMF Community Tech team has been disbanded, engineers laid off yesterday, in response to User:Levivich, the administrator User:Tamzin made the following accusation:

@Levivich: I firmly believe that every comment you have made regarding this matter, and indeed most matters since your woefully insufficient TBAN from ARBPIA, has been made with the singular goal of disrupting Wikipedia, in a strategy I can only assume is taken from s:Simple Sabotage Field Manual/Specific Suggestions for Simple Sabotage § "(11) General Interference with Organizations and Production". I believe that you have no interest in building an encyclopedia, and that you don't actually believe any of the things you say except coincidentally. I believe you are conducting a social experiment of how long you can mercilessly troll this community and get away with it. I don't think anything in the preceding sentences was a personal attack, because I'm more than prepared to cite evidence for it, but given that you think it's a personal attack for me to say you make things up, citing two examples of you making things up, I assume you'll see this as a PA too. See you there!
— User:Tamzin 20:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Further discussion occurred at User talk:Tamzin#June 2026. I would like Tamzin to provide the justification they referred to there and above. Evidence that a veteran editor has been waging a deliberate campaign of sabotage on Wikipedia across seventeen months and ~1,100 edits is not something that should be withheld from the community, and if the evidence is sufficient I would expect a community ban to be placed. Alternately, if such evidence is not present, the above accusation may be a violation of administrator conduct expectations. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• My main response to the claim that these were personal attacks is simple: Substantiated claims are not personal attacks, and I've already substantiated some of my claims, and in the following paragraphs will substantiate them further. However, I'll acknowledge that the accusation I've made against Levivich is perhaps the most serious I've ever made on Wikipedia. Even when I've caught long-term users engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, I don't think any of those cases would be a greater behavior of community trust than what I believe Levivich has been doing for over a year now: deliberately sabotaging discussions, not in the interest of them coming out his way, but merely to reach the conclusion that is most inconvenient for others. I referenced s:Simple Sabotage Field Manual/Specific Suggestions for Simple Sabotage, which I've quoted extensively in the "S" footnotes below.
  I'll also say, the reason I hadn't brought this to AN/I myself up till now is that I've never liked the idea of bringing... well of bringing anyone here, but especially not someone I was in a dispute with on which reasonable minds can differ. So I want to be clear about two things: I've publicly voiced these concerns about Levivich long before he showed up to troll this discussion that I was already involved in, and I've made no such claims regarding anyone else who disagrees with me, including some in the discussion whose views are significantly more opposed to mine than Levivich' ostensible views are.
  To adapt what I said when I raised this previously at WP:ARM in January, Levivich makes almost no content edits—3% mainspace on the year, with his last 50 non-automated mainspace edits going back 18 months. He acknowledges that he avoids content because the community said I engaged in consistently non neutral editing, so that was the end of that. So what does he do instead? He argues, in projectspace, constantly, and often completely irrationally. He says things that no reasonable person could think are true, and then refuses to engage with any critique except to change the topic or otherwise waste time. I recommend reading the full linked ARM comment, but I'll emphasize this incident: In 2023, he defended an admin from copyvio claims based on his own misunderstanding of WP:CLOSEPARA. I think that was good-faith but incompetent, the typical misunderstanding of content-editing norms you get from someone with little exposure to them, but I emphasize it to note that that admin apparently took his advice, and when brought to AN again this past December for further issues that eventually led to his desysop, Lev was there again to defend him, but this time he was willing to just make things up, claiming that It can't be plagiarism because the citation gives credit. When I pointed out that this was incorrect by any definition of "plagiarism", his response was to blow me off; to date, he's never acknowledged that following his advice got someone desysopped, and more to the point, he's continued this tendency of making things up and refusing to admit it, as I will show. If I seem cruel by assuming this all must be deliberate, let me put it this way: I believe Levivich is too smart to act this clueless by accident. Something changed after his ARBPIA TBAN.
  The current dispute began when I proposed a solidarity petition with the members of Wiki Workers United in the face of apparent union-busting by the WMF. We've had a few interactions in this regard, of which I'll highlight three, and explain why I believe his behavior in them is consistent with deliberate sabotage of the discussions.
  • Amidst criticism of the WMF holding fired staff to non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements, Levivich claimed that Consideration (like a release, NDA, non-disparagement, sometimes non-compete, etc.) in exchange for severance pay is, for better or worse, a requirement under U.S. law in order to make the severance payment obligation legally enforceable. Now, one might note that that is not actually relevant to the discussion; no one had said that the WMF shouldn't require anything of employees receiving severance. I pointed out that his claim didn't make sense, and pinged Emufarmers, who is a lawyer, who observed that furthermore Levivich' statement has been false since 1872. Levivich has thrice now refused to explain how he could have come to so greatly misunderstand the relevant law, let alone the logical error in how he applied it.
  • After someone suggested listing a count of extendedconfirmed signatories on the solidarity petition, Levivich and I happened to action the request at the same time and in slightly different ways. Deciding to proceed as if I hadn't lost AGF months ago, I left a polite suggestion of reverting Levivich' edit as redundant. 15 hours later, he hadn't replied, and someone else had agreed with me, so I made the revert citing WP:SILENT. Lev then replied that there was no consensus; I asked what his objection was; he then wrote four sentences explaining that he didn't not have an objection, while not saying what it was: Silence is not consensus, and I haven't been silent. Look, I don't want to argue with you, don't mistaken that for agreeing with you. You want to revert an edit I made, fine, that's no big deal, but don't falsely claim consensus just because I don't want to argue with you about something. You're acting on behalf of yourself, not on behalf of consensus. I replied by calling this out as trolling, which he described as not cool but otherwise did not respond to. I still have no idea why he objected to the revert.
  • After Clovermoss questioned the WMF's claim that they were required to lay workers off and could not reassign them internally, and Boud linked to a question where he asked WMF CPTO Selena Deckelmann about her claim that we could not pre-select certain staff for new roles, Levivich responded by accusing Boud of being careless for not finding four laws that he said show a "redeployment obligation". When Chaotic Enby pointed out that the French law he cited says the opposite of what Selena claimed, Levivich responded When did Selena or anyone else say that employees had to be fired in order to be redeployed? and then quoted something different than Boud had quoted (although it still did imply the same thing Selena elsewhere said outright). I again called this out as trolling, this time citing the same evidence in this bullet point and the second to show he was making demonstrably false claims, which he responded to as a personal attack and by threatening an AN/I thread. He then proved unwilling to actually take me here and commented again to insist that Selena's quote is not a claim that there are laws that require a layoff when an employee changes roles, which it patently obviously is.
• There's more. There's so much more. I could go through more comments from this matter. I could go through every discussion Levivich has been in for the past 17 months and do this. Maybe someone else will. But I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of being trolled, and I'm exhausted of being told I can't call out trolling even when someone is making a mockery of reasoned discourse. If any admin feels that I've made any claims here without evidence, I'll take whatever consequences are judged appropriate for personal attacks, but I think I've met my rhetorical burden whether or not people agree with me. If there's one thing I've held to in my time on this project, it's that I won't pretend I think someone's here in good faith if they aren't, and that if people want to cry incivility over that, they can, but I won't be part of a social-policy suicide pact. Levivich is a troll and should be banned. The end. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Quotes from s:Simple Sabotage Field Manual/Specific Suggestions for Simple Sabotage

• Levvich doesn't seem like a troll, they've been editing for 8 years. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Prior to his topic ban in WP:ARBPIA5, I believe he was here in good faith; he still had an annoyingly high rate of confidently incorrect takes (see the first half of the plagiarism example), and a frequent mentality of treating Wikipedia as a game (see my ARM comment), but he never did anything back then to make me think he was deliberately causing disruption. That changed with the ARBPIA TBAN, which he acknowledges is what made him stop editing mainspace. Since then, we've gone from intermittent bad takes to frequent incomprehensible ones, like how the pre-TBAN overly simplistic view of WP:CLOSEPARA turned into a post-TBAN confident assertion that "plagiarism" means something other than what it means. The only other explanation I can think of for the change in behavior is that Levivich' reading skills, reasoning skills, and communication skills all atrophied over night, completely coincidental to the TBAN. I think my conclusion is the kinder of the two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I saw the quotes and you're correct that Levvich is engaging in disruptive behavior, I just don't know if they're trolling or something. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  BKFIP has been editing here, or trying to, for 22 years. ~2026-35099-74 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Holy smokes, Tamzin.

  Speaking as someone who, too, has very few mainspace edits and prefers lurking behind the scenes: Levivich's behavior, if consistent with your description, is especially unforgivable if he isn't even contributing to the project proper.

  Assuming there is further evidence of contributions in the same vein as this, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment that this is intentional sabotage. It is at the very least consistent with intentional sabotage. A site ban should seriously be considered.

  All that said, I don't think this is enough yet. If you could find the motivation to provide these other examples of Levivich's behavior, or if someone else is willing to, that would be appreciated. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 15:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  @MEN KISSING: I've written 11kB so far, which is a lot, and still I felt was the shortest thing I could write that would satisfy the evidentiary threshold for my claims not to be personal attacks. I'm not opposed to doing further analysis, but I also don't want to bludgeon this thread, and if anything it would be more impactful to get a second perspective on a broader set of edits. Here are Levivich' contributions prior to CommTechGate; I'd be curious for your opinion on whether my thesis holds. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's understandable. I just woke up, so I'll have to have a closer look in an hour or so, once I'm medicated. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 15:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Are the edits provided in the link the edits made before Levvich began their disruption? WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, just before the immediate controversy (WP:COMMTECHGATE and everything associated with it). If you want Levivich' edits pre-TBAN, that'd be . -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  So they've been topic banned since 2025? WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:RESTRICT#Levivich. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've decided to do a spot check of 5 randomly chosen edits from the 985 edits between the offset Tamzin gave me and the TBAN, done by setting the limit URL parameter to each of the following integers randomly picked between 1 and 985, courtesy of random.org, and scrolling down to the last edit in the list. I've looked at the edit itself and the immediately surrounding participation.

  • 410: , at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1210#h-Close_review:_Horse_Eye's_Back-Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back..._again-20251212232600: An addendum to a !vote to overturn Ivanvector's closure of a proposal to indef HEB. Levi is stating that Ivan has been canvassed to that discussion. The HEB thing is unfortunately a very dense issue I don't have the time to familiarize myself with, so I will allow other editors who have the entire context to elaborate on this. I will say, at face value, I find Levi's accusation inflammatory, and his stance that someone who regularly edits roads articles can't act as an uninvolved admin in a roads-related sanction discussion seems like a plainly false reading of WP:INVOLVED. This !vote is also consistent with a disdain for admins.
  • 806: , at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#h-Administrator_civility_standards_and_Necrothesp-20250618055600: editing to strengthen a comment into a !vote that Necrothesp should be warned for incivility. Necro had been referring to an abstract group of "smug editors", and called some of the editors who showed up at his talk page about it "bullies". I partially agree with Levi's stance that this was incivil, but I wouldn't think it warrants a warning, and I sympathize with Necro's immediate defense of using the term "bully". Levi then extrapolates that the behavior is consistent with a poor grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, enough to warrant a recall. I find that to be escalatory, and I disagree with it. The participation is also consistent with a disdain for admins.
  • 524: , at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#h-Propose_Indefinite_Block_of_HEB-Horse_Eye's_Back_failing_to_assume_good_faith,_being_uncivil_spanning_years-20250814190800: Levi was accused by Zanahary of bludgeoning the discussion. Levi is apologizing, and saying he won't add any more comments. He does end up editing that comment to say he wants to propose a rule against dynamic IPs proposing sitebans, and adds two more comments on the topic of sanctions for HEB ten days later.

  I'm going to take a break now as I'm getting a lot of discord pings, my next two numbers however are provided here:

  • 798: , at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1193#h-Proposed_community_ban_of_Bloodofox-User:bloodofox-20250614032000. Apparently, Tamzin was directly involved here, so I invite them to comment theirself, if they'd like.
  • 859: , at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_221#h-Simple_summaries:_editor_survey_and_2-week_mobile_study-20250602182000

  I'll note that I didn't roll a number below 410, thus leaving out nearly half of the relevant history, and I invite other editors to scrutinize some more recent diffs. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 18:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Regarding the Bloodofox ban thread, I want to be fair here: I think it's pretty clear Levivich was trying to undercut the momentum toward a siteban by opening a new subheading to propose a warning, but that's one thing that, on its own, I don't think I can describe as deliberately disruptive. It's not inconsistent with my theory of deliberate disruption, because it can certainly be done in bad faith, but it's something that good-faith users do too, including myself on a few occasions. More notable perhaps is the substance of Levivich' argument against a siteban, previous similar instances happened in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2023. Some see this as evidence of a pattern of conduct that isn't improving. I don't see it that way: I think if an editor crosses the line every 2 or 3 years, that's OK. That's an acceptable frequency of policy violations. That's similar to a lot of the disruption in the CommTechGate thread in that it sidesteps the actual substance of the ban proposal (a user repeatedly targeting editors or sources on the basis of sexual orientation or religion) to meditate on a tangential question (what rate of incivility, in the abstract, is acceptable) before pursuing a course of action that guarantees more fragmentation of the discussion. In other words, this isn't an incident I would have chosen to highlight if your random number generator hadn't picked it, and if it were to occur in a vacuum I'd expect anyone to AGF, but I do think it's part of the same pattern of behavior. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ngl I was considering taking this here myself, but was holding off lest it be conducive to their self-indulgent framing of matters as "ingroup" vs. "outgroup" re the WMF stuff, rather than WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE. I don't know how cognisant of the following they are, but it's very clear they hold the project/community/admin corps in contempt and don't contribute constructively. While everyone else in a discussion focusses on resolving the issue at hand, Levivich appears to typically use the discussion to feed ego and 'win' exchanges (ofc we're all guilty of that at times, but not to this degree nor habitually), if their input happens to benefit the encyclopedia, that's a happy accident, it's clearly not where their priority is. The discussion at WP:VPW was a case in point, their first comments were sealioning someone over a technicality (see full exchange ), presumably to get established in the discussion. Ngl, I found this comment pretty illuminating, particularly I wouldn't mind standing up to outside influence groups like the ADL and Heritage Foundation if I had the Wikipedia establishment supporting me, but I don't. (implying their motivation for editing PIA was to be an actor in the American political psychodrama, also see ). Given how badly they took the TBAN by arbcom, I wouldn't be surprised if their sole goal following that has been to disrupt/frustrate what they view as the 'Wikipedia establishment' responsible for it. I know they have a lot of wikifriends here, and others' impressions may differ, but there's certainly a dysfunction here that needs resolving. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support a site-wide ban on Levivich per the evidence outlined by Tamzin, Kowal2701 and MEN KISSING above, as well as Tryptofish below. Levivich might've well been a beneficial contributor in the past but it's clear they're no longer here to build the encyclopedia and are only acting as a time-sink troll to others. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 18:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• It's a very big deal to site-ban an editor who has been here this long, and I have a lot of conflicting reactions to what we are discussing here. Levivich and I have had a long history, going back many years, and it has largely been adversarial. Going back very far, and well before anything raised so far in this ANI thread, I can remember some WP:AE threads following the ArbCom GMO case where Levivich came to defend editors who ended up getting topic-banned from GMOs, and I remember some unpleasant stuff where he tried to deflect blame from those users onto those (including me) who were filing the complaints: example. Way back then, the kind of behavior I saw from him resembled in some ways what is being reported here. And I'll stipulate that in the more recent ArbCom case that got him topic-banned from PIA, I filed some of the evidence that led to his tban. But that said, I also believe that for a long time, he has been a productive editor who could not be reasonably described as "not here". I guess it's possible that he has gotten much worse since the sanction from ArbCom, but I'm not yet comfortable with an actual site ban. If he is presenting problems in project-space discussions, maybe a community-imposed tban from that kind of thing would be worth considering, even if he currently isn't doing much else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  The length of time Levivich has been editing is completely and wholly irrelevant. I myself played a part in getting a 19-year-old account indeffed several months ago for gross incivility and troll behavior. There are several active LTA cases dating back to the early 2000's. Quite often the opposite is true: editors who have been around for huge amounts of time get away with violating policies newer editors would be blocked for. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 18:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really disagree, but I think of it as something where length of time is not an absolute determinant either way. It's not a complete excuse, but it's not completely irrelevant, more like something that should be considered as part of the total picture. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weakly support a siteban on Levivich for disruption, per Tamzin and Kowal2701, plus my own incomplete analysis. What I've seen so far is consistent with Tamzin's claim that this is an editor whose participation is consistently disruptive, maybe even intentionally so. I have not familiarized myself with the circumstances surrounding Levi's TBAN, nor is my analysis complete to my satisfaction, thus my support for a site-ban is weak. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 18:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I concur with other editors that the site-ban discussion might be premature, or might be less preferable to a less harsh sanction. I'll think about this all more later, my brain is telling me I need to stop staring at text for today. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 01:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support a site ban against Levivich for the disruption caused by their editing. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, at least - I think I Levivich and I disagree on a great many things (a couple examples in threads linked above, even), and he hasn't helped his case with this disconnection from articlespace (worth reconsidering, as that'll keep being used against you [for good reason IMO]), but surely the evidentiary threshold for a WP:NOTHERE CBAN is substantially higher than what has been presented here.
  I have found Levivich to be wrong, and even frustrating from time to time, but I don't think I've ever had the impression that Levivich is NOTHERE, and the small number of links above are not nearly enough to convince me that an impression formed over some years is incorrect. I do perceive in Levivich something that I identify with: that he seems more likely to participate in a thread if he thinks it's headed in the wrong direction, or where there's a pile-on that seems like it could use a "hold on a minute" voice. I know from experience that's not a great way to make friends, and certainly not when talking about an issue that has a lot of people fired up. That being said ... hold on a minute. :)
  I'll also say that I don't love the use of the Simple Sabotage Field Manual here. In a rules-based, consensus-based, discussion-and-process-heavy system like we have, I suspect we could compile diffs showing basically all of us are saboteurs. At minimum, I would expect to see a lot more diffs to specifically substantiate that that document is applicable to Levivich in enough ways to make it relevant. But I would much prefer if we could just do it the old fashioned way: dump a pile of diffs showing evidence of a pattern of NOTHERE since the tban that's compelling enough to convince us that Lev has tossed aside 40k edits of HERE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Accurate observation: many if not most of my votes and comments are of the "hold on a minute" variety. IMO it's not worth my time to write something, or worth others' time to read it, if I'm just repeating what everyone else already said and it won't change the outcome. Even if no one else said it, if it's not going to change the outcome, I usually won't take the time to say it or ask others to read it. If no one has said something (that I think should be said), and if my saying it might change the outcome, then it's worth my time to write it and maybe others' time to read it. In other words, I'd rather speak up than pile on. Levivich (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban for now, for reasons similar to Rhododendrites just above (although "hold on a minute" can also sometimes just be throwing a counterproductive wrench into the works), but support some sort of narrower restriction. I don't think we've reached the point yet where we should be rushing to a site ban. But I do feel that there are some serious issues here, so I could support a tban from WP: and WT: spaces, or something like that, based on the evidence so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedians are generally prone to arguing rather than getting useful work done. See WP:LAME which lists numerous cases such as the Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness debate. For a fresh example, see below. In this case, I was especially struck by the evidence that After someone suggested listing a count of extendedconfirmed signatories on the solidarity petition, Levivich and I happened to action the request at the same time and in slightly different ways.. So, they were both doing the same thing! The idea that one is a super sekrit saboteur seems silly. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - Levivich being wrong on some things out of 40k+ edits =/= Levivich being a saboteur. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'm probably too close to this situation to actually recommend anything with weight (i.e., having also been on the receiving end of similar disingenuous WWU concern-trolling from Levivich) but, moral support. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• I kind of wish that doesn't become a oppose/support-vote discussion about site banning Levivich; I think that's jumoing the gun and that there's a deeper discussion and bigger picture to look at here. I remember back in 2019 when Levivich was a new face in the community; to me, he was someone who was willing to buck trends and challenge narratives, such as negative attitudes around the WMF (especially around FramGate IIRC) and lax attitudes towards problematic considered "the norm" by parts of the community (such as treating new users poorly). He could be kind of annoying and overly lawyerly, but also make points that even his detractors could recognize as valid. Early on in my editing career I remember identifying with Levivich as someone outside of the websites elders; I remember we would talk on and offwiki and him helping out with copyright-related matters (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#Martinevans123 (August 2022), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive336#Mike_Peel (August 2021), Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Lugnuts (August 2022) and such). I don't know how else to put it, but I think Levivich got jaded over the years in advocating his positions, and I think his 2023 Iban with Volunteer Marek from Arbcom had a pronounced effect on that, probably more than the ARBPIA5 indef tban (which I didn't support). I think his more critical view (or 180) on anti-plagiarism related efforts probably stems from my support vote of that Iban, given my work in that area (and CCI in particular) is considered "my" area. I could be wrong, but this explanation makes the most sense to me, given things he had previously said on and off wiki. I should've realized that voting in such a way could hurt Levivich given our previous interactions, so I think that's a thing I failed at preventing, and I should've recused on that issue like my friend GeneralNotability did. I basically say all of this to say; I'm sad that Levivich has become so jaded over the years, and he's kind of become the kind of old hand he used to be opposed to, and I feel some guilt in maybe pushing him in that direction. I don't think he should be site banned, but I think it's some sort of break from noticeboards and tense discussions might be better. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I also have some discomfort with the way this has become a "vote", and I also agree with you about the idea of some sort of break. Above, I floated the idea of a tban from WP: and WT: spaces, but not a site ban. @Tamzin: would a tban of that sort address your concerns? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Moneytrees, that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Do you have any examples of Levivich's more critical view of copyright aside from the Pbsouthwood discussions? If not, I wonder if a more likely explanation for the difference isn't just that Levivich has some unorthodox opinions about close paraphrasing specifically, as these two discussions from 2021 seem to suggest. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ I don’t totally understand what you mean by that? But yes, there was also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#User:Gilabrand unblock request (See also the associated CCI, and note the back and forth with Tamzin)… but then there was also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:FuzzyMagma and close paraphrasing. There’s probably another instance that I’ve forgotten? But yeah, I think you’ll get why I feel this way after looking at those discussions. But, 🤷‍♂️ Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that Levivich takes a very loose view of close paraphrasing, but the idea that it's out of personal retaliation against you seems (respectfully) bonkers to me and not supported by the evidence I've seen. I think very highly of you and can't imagine you'd say something like that without good reason (and maybe the private conversations you mention make things clearer), but a lot of people in this discussion are inferring bad faith on much, much shakier evidence than I'm comfortable with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  FuzzyMagma was also using AI for their edits, they would later admit, so in this case Levivich was absolutely right.

  (and I say this as someone who is very much not impressed with the behavior of him and his buddies during the WWU stuff and here) Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Let be clearer @Gnomingstuff; I don't think Leviv was wrong there (I was familiar with that user), I just have trouble reconciling his comments there with comments made elsewhere. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ, Respectfully, I wouldn't say something if I didn't have good reason to believe it; I don't want it to be true, at all. But your comment did make me think back on what I said above, and I think I misspoke by saying "anti-plagiarism related efforts" instead of "CCI", which is truer to the Gilabrand/PB discussions and my talks with Leviv looking back on them, and makes more sense given the FuzzyMagma discussion (Where Leviv doesn't discuss the CCI). And yes, a good deal of my thoughts on this come from things not said in public; I don't want to invade the privacy of those discussions too much, but I will say Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive336#We_cannot_sweep_copyright_issues_under_the_rug_any_longer was greatly inspired by our conversations, which I told Leviv at the time.

  But.... I don't really care that much about the copyright stuff? I didn't want that to be the point of what I wrote above. I totally agree that this discussion has just kind of become a mess of bad-faith stuff and minor things being blown out of proportion. I wish that the bigger context was being discussed here but... of course that isn't what will happen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Moneytrees. I do think Levivich's comment below is the more parsimonious explanation, but I now have a better understanding of where you're coming from. My comments above were needlessly escalatory and I owe you an apology for that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Money, rest assured, you're wrong about being the cause of my jadedness. I do not remember who was on the panel for WP:HJP or who voted how on what -- I had forgotten that you'd been an arb at all until I read your post here. Your vote for the iban has nothing to do with my not editing mainspace, and WP:PIA5 (and the recent PIA5.1) caused my jadedness much, much more than HJP. But I don't even remember who the arbs were in PIA5 , or who voted for what, for that matter, and off the top of my head, I can only remember the name of 4 members of Arbcom right now. I don't hold grudges or really even care about which arb voted how: I blame the community writ large for those decisions -- the electorate, specifically, for electing, and often re-electing, the majority of arbs that issued those decisions. Also, I did not do a "180" on plagiarism or copyright or anything else, and I'm not sure why you think that, based on, if I'm understanding correctly, that I've sometimes helped at CCI but other times expressed the view that close paraphrasing is sometimes overzealously enforced on the site (a view I still hold). Those aren't contradictory. Levivich (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Levivich, you might want to recheck this comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Levivich (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Moneytrees above that voting on a site ban is jumping the gun. A CBAN is the final step in handling misbehavior; AFAICS Levivich hasn't even been given a clear signpost by uninvolved users that his meta-space contributions have become unhelpful. I agree with Tamzin that they have become a problem. Being willing to take contrary positions is a good thing for this community, and something I've appreciated in Levivich previously, but looking through his recent contributions shows an apparent desire to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, rather than in defense of a clear principle. I think it is more charitable to assume Levivich knows he is doing this and to ask him to stop, rather than to assume he's incapable of change. I do not speak from ill-will here: the last time (I believe) we interacted directly was when I advocated against his PIA TBAN, and we have agreed and disagreed several times over the years. But this is the time for Levivich to show that he is still WP:HERE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• I would like to say that regardless of any decisions made on Levivich, i do not think Tamzins behavior in this dispute has been good. The pattern of Tamzin replying to levivich with long responses, either accusatory in tone, or that are explicitly accusations, then never taking it to a noticeboard where something can be done about it is apparent. to put it simply, if tamzin thought levivich was a saboteur and they had evidence and felt the need to say things to that effect multiple times, they should have brought it to ANI to remove the saboteur from wikipedia, not waited for someone else to force their hand. I do not personally find their statement that they didnt take it to ANI because they are reticent to take anyone to ANI particularly credible. It is in my view that the accusations were incivil given they were not serving a conduct correction purpose ~2026-27127-78 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-27127-78 (talk)

• Levivich should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to all of this before there is much more !voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, Brad. (Who's idea was it to start this on a Monday morning?) I'll make some time to read all this and respond in the next 24. Levivich (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  It was afternoon for me, if that helps? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Right after dinner for me, which was also not good timing, so, maybe we all suffer. 🙃 -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Levivich, are you Icewhiz? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  What a wild thing to say -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am not saying anything, but asking. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  To answer your question: Levivich is not Icewhiz. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think Levivich is Icewhiz (talk · contribs) because Icewhiz was globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and Levivich would've already been dealt with years ago if they were Icewhiz. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: Even putting aside that Levivich is maybe one of the wikipedians least likely to be Icewhiz (barring some terribly-played long game), I'm struggling to understand your thought process here. What were you hoping Levivich would say if they were indeed an Icewhiz sock? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Conduct unbecoming, to accuse an editor of project sabotage. Is this admin open to recall? Zaathras (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would be more effective to address the evidence and assertions provided by Tamzin rather than just dismissing them in such a simple sentence. toby ^{in solidarity} 01:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Even if Tamzin turns out to be wrong about Levivich, this is a one-off incident that did not involve any usage of administrative tools. If Tamzin had blocked Levivich without consulting the community, then sure, a recall could be considered. No such thing has occurred. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 01:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing requires an editor to be "open to recall" @Zaathras but I do believe there's some timer on the admin switch and recall process eligibility. NB: explicitly not recommending recall, just talking about the process for one. @WereWolf370 @MEN KISSING you both mean well, but there's a lot more nuance here than is apparent as relatively new accounts. Speaking as your fellow editor and not an admin I highly recommend stepping back and listening more. Star Mississippi 01:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm fairly sure there's no process bar on Wikipedia:Administrator recall for Tamzin. There has been no previous recall petition on Tamzin Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Lists. Their successful RfA was in 2022 so well past the 12 month period Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin. They've never had an RfB, and of course not a re-RfA or an admin election. They were not elected to arbcom in the last 12 months Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025. Personally I think a recall is a bad idea in any case but even if editors disagree, since other dispute resolution methods should be attempted first, IMO an absolute minimum is allowing this thread to be archived before going further. And even after this thread, IMO the step of contacting them on their talk page and talking about your intentions should also be carried out first. Nil Einne (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think I was thinking of their recent re-sysop setting the 12 month clock, but clearly isn't the case. Thanks for the detailed qualifications @Nil Einne Star Mississippi 03:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I gotta say, this report strikes me as a clear case of "bitch eating crackers". Which is to say, my diagnosis here is that Levivich hasn't done anything particularly wrong other than somehow piss off Tamzin to the degree that Tamzin is no longer capable of taking anything Levivich does in good faith in any context. (Because of this I regard the original comment as a pretty serious WP:ASPERSION that cannot be backed up.) All the examples Tamzin lists strike me as either good faith mistakes (1 and 3) or Levivich simply being correct (2; silence is not consensus). Loki (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban, but something needs to change. Levivich has some strong opinions - we all do, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However the way they choose to pursue them is becoming unproductive. This isn't uncommon when someone decides to forgo article writing and instead focuses on RGW/tilting at windmills. No one has to edit articles, we're all volunteers, but if you have no interest in doing so then maybe this is no longer the site for you and there are other places to have the meta discussions about solving the world or at least en wiki. That said, a project space ban coupled with Levivich's decision not to edit articles is functionally a site ban. I guess the question is whether Levivich wants to remain part of the community or not. That's on them to decide. Star Mississippi 01:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think the question is whether the community wants me to remain part of the community or not. Levivich (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support two-way IBAN between Tamzin and Levivich, in addition to and not withstanding any other sanctions. A lot of the misbehavior cited above by Tamzin (in fact, most of it) is from direct interactions between them and Levivich. It's up for debate whether Levivich has been meaningfully contributing to the project since the ARBPIA5 TBAN, but the fact remains that Tamzin and Levivich just cannot seem to get along with each other. Whenever they interact, they trade inflammatory accusations. I take no position on whether Levivich is in fact a valuable contributor or a troll disrupting the project, but at a minimum the two editors should be banned from interacting with each other. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think a two-way IBAN will be helpful here; Tamzin's disruptive behavior extends beyond Levivich. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Levivich's disruptive behavior extends beyond Tamzin as well (wikilawyering around what some people consider to be ableist insults) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Calling lunacy and insane "ableist" borders on trolling. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Thebiguglyalien See List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. A lot of common insults ("idiot", "moron", "retard", "imbecile") were once actual medical terms used for varying degrees of intellectual disability. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The word "Lunacy" is not on the List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes and no. "Lunatic" is on the list, "a term referring to a person who is seen as mentally ill, dangerous, foolish, or crazy—conditions once attributed to 'lunacy'." Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can we end this conversation here and agree that calling other editors lunatics or similar is incendiary and a violation of our civility policy? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would be, but I don't think anyone called another editor a lunatic? The cited example is Levivich and Ymblanter saying an action is lunacy, which isn't a personal attack - I'm pretty certain some of my notability efforts have been described as "lunacy", and it's fair for editors to think and say that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I see your statement The cited example is Levivich and Ymblanter saying an action is lunacy, which isn't a personal attack. To quote from the recent Arbcom decision, however, "Focusing on content isn't enough": It is entirely possible to flout the norms of civility while still focusing on content.. Stealing one comment in particular: When you call someone else's edit "idiotic", you know what you're really saying, and so does everyone else (Asilvering, 2026) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  We aren't forbidden from commenting negatively on actions. To focus on me as an example, some editors see my notability efforts as destructive, irrational, damaging, foolish, and even lunacy. None of these are inappropriate - it's part of reasonable debate for editors to say that.

  Statements like calling an action "idiotic" or "vandalism" do cross the line, because there is a strong connection between the action being idiotic or vandalism and the person committing the action being an idiot or a vandal, but such a strong connection to a negative inference about the person does not exist for every negative descriptor of an action, and I do not see one for "lunacy". BilledMammal (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  We aren't forbidden from commenting negatively on actions does not appear to be compatible with your above statement that They've issued personal attacks against SDeckelmann-WMF, accusing them of gaslighting. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  And that above statement is wrong. Tamzin's comment was directed at Levivich. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Gaslighting" I would put in the same category as "idiotic".

  I think we can agree that editors may comment negatively on others contributions, but there is a limit. I hope we can agree that calling the contribution "idiotic" or "gaslighting" crosses the line, while calling it "unproductive" or "damaging" does not, and comments like "lunacy" or "foolish" might be in more of a grey area.

  (I also read the comment as talking directly about the editor, not the edit) BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  You are allowed to believe that accusing somebody of gaslighting is equivalent to calling them "idiotic", while "lunacy" is more of a grey area. Your definition is not shared by mainstream dictionaries or reliable sources, I don't believe, but I think we've each stated our point; you've said there's a difference between calling somebody's edit "X" and calling somebody "X", I've pointed out that the community/Arbcom does not agree with your argument. You say that "lunacy" has less of a negative connotation than "gaslighting"; we've never had gaslighting asylums, though we have had lunatic asylums, so I'm afraid I must disagree with what I find to be a novel ranking, unsupported by reliable sources. And I think that's all that should be said on this topic; apparently, we cannot all agree that calling other editors lunatics or similar is a violation of our civility policies. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 08:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Also, if anyone thinks I'm trolling, please send me a message on my talk page and/or open a separate discussion to avoid sidetracking this one. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien I would tend to agree, but in case you aren't aware, this is a thing, particularly on Reddit, where you can get blocked for using lunacy and insane, as well as many other terms. I recall about three or four years ago it was common for Reddit admins to block users who used the word "crazy". They were first given a warning, and if they continued to use the term, they were shown the door. My point is that SuperPianoMan9167 and many others see this as a problem, even if we don't. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  If there turn out to be no sanctions specifically against Levivich here, then a two-way interaction ban is justified. This will be a massive time sink, and we want to avoid this happening again, by hook or by crook.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this is appropriate; this thread has already turned into a proxy war between the two "sides" of the WWU discussion, so it's not an issue of two people who just can't get along Gnomingstuff (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've not been following the issue closely and so am not familiar with these two sides or the general state of play. I suppose that there are lots of editors who are even less aware and involved while the general readership will have no awareness at all. Is there a succinct summary somewhere? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps this summary by Risker will help you (and the many others who are in a similar situation). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm just not seeing this. I understand that people who don't contribute in mainspace run the risk of WP:NOTHERE, and this very much needs to be factored in, but being wrong on several occasions doesn't seem to be enough to justify all this kerfuffle. Tamzin could simply ignore Levivich, he's not the pope of wikipedia, just an ordinary user.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wanted to ask about that. I've seen people use an exclusive focus on project space as justification for WP:NOTHERE, and was wondering if that was a concern here. As a newer editor, this is a legitimate question: does not editing in mainspace constitute NOTHERE? The closest I found is the heading *:Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia, which is ambiguous. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I would say that rarely/never editing mainspace correlates with not being HERE, but is definitely not inherently so. Some people, for instance, do lots of important maintenance work behind the scenes that rarely has occasion to bring them into mainspace. This is especially true if most of their work is with other content namespaces, like Category or File. Other people may go through periods of rarely/never touching content, maybe because they're not very active but want to stay involved in a particular discussion that's important to them. So I think that Levivich' avoidance of mainspace is an important part of the case that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but the case is only made through analyzing what he's been doing with his time instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Gotcha, thank you; I appreciate the clarity! EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I am not going to !vote, but what has been presented here in this discussion is not moving me to support a site ban. If the claim is Levivich is wrong somtimes and stubbornly so, maybe so, but if that is a site-ban offense many Wikipedia's need to be banned. Levivich has always contributed positively in the few interactions I've had with him, and frankly I've alway perceived him as a neutral, level-headed editor in disputes. He, in my observation, usually has given good rationale. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• A lot more investigation is needed before action against Levivich can be considered. What I see at the moment is one editor making accusations against another. That's a starting point, not an ending point. Zero^talk 05:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Refer to Arbcom. Tamzin's examples aren't sufficient to convince me that this is sabotage. The most I can conclude is that Levivich is sometimes very confidently incorrect - site bans for this would quickly depopulate the project. I see that some other editors are in fact convinced it's sabotage. I don't think ANI is really capable of assessing these long-term patterns where the individual edits are (mostly?) not problematic in isolation. If Tamzin and other convinced editors want to make this kind of claim, they should be willing to lay out all the evidence in front of a panel who will (hopefully) actually examine it in detail. Otherwise, I oppose imposing sanctions including IBANs at this time, but think that if the editors involved should consider requesting mutual IBANs so that they don't drive each other up the wall. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I support an Arbcom referral (if necessary from to his accusers). They are most suited to sort this out, not ANI. R. G. Checkers ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that Arbcom is the most appropriate next step; this ANI discussion seems to have failed as a venue for dispute resolution, and a consensus in regards to sanctions against any particular editor seem unlikely to form here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Tbh I agree, this discussion is unlikely to achieve much, but it puts arbcom in a bit of an awkward situation. Arguably it's somewhat involved in the issues surrounding Levivich (m:U4C anyone?), and several arbs are friends of Tamzin's (I guess they could just recuse). Tbh I think it was a betrayal of trust by Tamzin to not mention that one of the fired employees was a close friend, and re the accusations, just showing that Levivich's behaviour maps onto the advice in a WW2 saboteur manual is damning enough without going into intent. But the context for the former is that the only way we can affect decisions made by the WMF is to kick and scream and bang our heads against the proverbial wall (naturally some people don't appear to have caught onto that). The crux of the issue is a broken governance system that largely disregards communities and by extension the projects. To people who care most about civility to WMFers, resolving that would be very productive. Potentially sanctioning someone for doing the 'kicking and screaming' while ignoring the context would be a very Wikipedian thing to do Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701: Please see my reply above. Sammy is not a close friend, but it has literally never been a secret that we lived together years ago; this was linked from both our userpages throughout this, and was pointed out by Levivich way back on 23 May in the CommTechGate thread, which I didn't respond to since no one else seemed to see it as significant, and even Levivich didn't (I don't think?) see cause to bring it up again. My personal proximity to this did change my behavior in precisely one way: It's the reason that I initially sought input on what to do about the union-busting rather than immediately jumping toward the petition, which I only did once a number of other people had spoken up to say the same thing, mollifying any concerns I had that I was overreacting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll strike that. In hindsight saying that in the discussion would've probably been best but I believe you re it not seeming necessary Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Were Tamzin's comments completely unsubstantiated? No. Were all of the allegations obviously true looking at that evidence? No. Is this thread a useful or appropiate forum for further investigation of whether Levivich has become disruptive to the point they should be sanctioned or Tamzin should lose their admin rights? No. I suggest we move on. Scribolt (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with your comments but not your conclusion - and therefore would agree to refer to ArbCom for a more detailed review. GiantSnowman 15:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Refer to Arbcom: Tamzin has identified a vulnerability in the WikiWay which Wikipedia policies do not paper over. Whether that vulnerability applies to Levivich is a question more suited to Arbcom. A related question that ought to be considered at the same time is whether a team of fellow-minded editors with a disruptive goal could effectively stymie Wikipedia policy in the manner Tamzin alleges, indefinitely and with impunity. If so, can policy adapt to meet threat without sacrificing core Wiki values? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  its not like wiki bureaucracy pushers is novel. And though im not wholly against any intervention, hyperbole as if this is threatening the entirety of the project feels premature. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) In general, I support the idea of someone (arbcom, other volunteers, the WMF, outside researchers...) doing some RAND-style research/strategy about how to prevent or resist coordinated disruption campaigns. We generally do an ok-ish job of dealing with influence campaigns, but procedural sabotage would indeed be something new for us AFAIK. Especially now that Wikipedia has become a high-profile political target, it's not out of the question. But the threat model isn't "someone who was here in good faith for years and became a grumpy contrarian". That's something else entirely. Insofar as an arbcom case concerned Levivich, it would be about whether he's being disruptive, not whether he's being intentionally disruptive. That's a poor fit for tackling the hypothetical risk you're referencing. For this case, I'd personally prefer not to see a long, dramatic arbcom case, and would rather just see Tamzin withdraw the saboteur allegation as, at very least, insufficiently supported at the time they made it (doesn't mean they can't still call various comments made by Levivich disruptive, of course), and acknowledgement from Levivich that it's not just Tamzin who thinks they've been disruptive at times (and that avoiding mainspace doesn't help that perception). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I'm well aware that, ultimately, any editor's private intentions are unknowable. The only case I can recall where the community's been able to confidently say someone trolled us in this way is Tarc, but that's because he confessed to it after about a year of deliberately taking the worst position in discussions. I stand by my feeling that, to borrow some gentler wording from Vanamonde, it is more charitable to assume Levivich knows he is doing this, but similar to what Snow Fire says, it ultimately doesn't matter whether the constant derailment of threads is his core goal or merely a side-effect of focusing on "winning" threads rather than building an encyclopedia. If this goes to ArbCom, or if I'm asked to present more evidence here, I intend to focus primarily on that weaker claim. Intent may matter specifically for a decision of TBAN vs. CBAN, but for everything else, the main thing that matters is the effects of someone's behavior. And it seems like most people in this thread agree that the effects of Levivich' behavior in projectspace discussions have been negative, in a way that has resisted correction going back to before his PIA5 TBAN and even moreso since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: In answer to the question in your edit summary, I don't think we need to undelete Tarc's redlinked page in order to follow the point you are making. (I am familiar with the background as I was one of the arbitrators in that case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I think it is a mistake to assume Levivich is interested in "winning" discussions. While a common marker of battleground editing, I don't see it here: what I see is a desire to debate minor or tangential points ad nauseum in a way that suggests the argument itself is the goal. This is in marked contrast to Levivich historically, who typically had a purpose, even if it was one I disagreed with. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's a fair distinction. I would look at it slightly differently (although I think just two ways of saying the same thing): Many editors are motivated by a desire to "win" discussions, but usually "winning" means having the argument that the discussion closes in favor. This isn't even a categorically bad motivation; when trying to persuade people, it makes sense to want to, well, persuade people. The form of "winning" Levivich seeks, though, seems to be much more about having made one's opponent give up, whether or not it has any effect on the overall discussion or anything important. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: can you point to two or three examples where you've seen me debate minor or tangential points ad nauseum in a way that suggests the argument itself is the goal? I'd like to know what you're referring to. Levivich (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot of patience with editors who aren't here primarily to produce content (if I had my way I would sweep a lot of ANI regulars out to the ocean), but Tamzin's behavior here is not acceptable, and they should know that. There's basically no way outside of secret evidence to prove Levivich is trying to undermine Wikipedia and such an exceptional claim should go to ArbCom or at least be treated like a serious point to bring up at a noticeboard, not thrown out in a dispute. None of what Tamzin posted above demonstrates what they are arguing. If you want to make a NOTHERE argument, sure. But you don't get to post wild personal attacks and then justify it with conspiratorial walls of text. If Levivich was stridently arguing against the WMF this would never have come up. Tamzin seems to be losing perspective here over the WMF firings and is lashing out inappropriately at people who don't share their views. I agree with Scribolt above that if people want to raise questions of Levivich not being here to build an encyclopedia or Tamzin should lose their bits, this ain't the venue to do it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comments: A) While it's possible Levivich needs sanctions, it probably shouldn't be over this specific issue, which has involved a lot of people opining their personal philosophy on all sides and clearly was a controversy magnet. B) Levivich presumably isn't "intentionally" performing sabotage, but also Tamzin's accusation is not some shocking breach, because ultimately there is not a huge difference between someone intentionally trolling and someone "effectively" trolling. C) Levivich's last 50 mainspace edits go back to 2024. Per David Fuchs, regardless, we really don't need "professional commentators" here to lecture Wikipedia on how it should operate internally while not working on Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The impression I formed a few years ago (before the ARBPIA5 indef) is that Levivich is principally interested in Wikipedia as a free Argument Clinic and an opportunity to hone his debating skills (basically consistent with Kowal2701's comment on his behavior in discussions). The XTools analysis shows little interest in mainspace editing, and even before entering PIA in late 2023, his mainspace contributions seem to be skewed towards contentious topics and controversial figures with opportunities for talk page debate. That's not WP:NOTHERE by itself. Building an encyclopedia does require debate, and because he's intelligent and acute, he often puts forth sensible and salutary proposals. It's obviously been inspirational to some editors. However, I don't think it was wise for him to excuse himself from articlespace entirely. This trajectory looks like the Article titles and capitalisation Arbcom case, where an intelligent and very energetic editor became wrapped up in the idea that scratching his itch was the principal business of Wikipedia and his critics were sore losers who couldn't refute him. It didn't end well. The accusations by Tamzin of deliberate sabotage/irrationality are well beyond what I can concur in, but there is a problem with how Levivich approaches Wikipedia that goes beyond clashing with Tamzin or the specifics of ARBPIA5/COMMTECH drama that shouldn't be papered over. Choess (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment – Pre-emptive apologies to some of the more thoughtful commentators above, but having read this entire thread top-to-bottom *clears throat*: 'What in the 'the birds are government drones sent to spy on us' is this?
  As to the editors chomping at the bit for a siteban before ever hearing the accused's response to these extraordinary allegations, somebody show them where mainspace is found and don't let them out of it until they have each produced quality work in that space. That is: block them from projectspace.
  We tolerate far too many editors that haplessly wander into projectspace and become squatters instead of contributing to (wiki-)society by engaging in the whole 'building an encyclopedia' business that is supposed to be our primary task. Yes, that also extends to Levivich. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• As multiple editors warned could happen, this thread has been derailed by discussion about COMMTECHGATE. The opening statement did not ask for a review of COMMTECHGATE. It did not ask for a review of Tamzin's behaviour in COMMTECHGATE as a whole. It asked, unambiguously and very specifically, about Tamzin's justification for accusing Levivich of sabotage and for discussion of whether or not that justification is sufficient to take action against Levivich, and, in the event that the community finds it is not, if Tamzin has violated administrator conduct expectations. In other words, we had a very clear structure for this discussion given to us.
  Step 1 was to hear Tamzin's justification, which was completed quickly, step 2 to evaluate that justification (by investigating Levivich's editing history and hearing what Levivich has to say about the allegations), step 3 to form a consensus on whether or not Levivich should be sanctioned and, in the eventuality that the answer to that is no, then step 4 would be to form a consensus on whether or not Tamzin should be sanctioned.
  So can someone explain to me why in the world people are discussing Tamzin's general behaviour relating to COMMTECHGATE? What part of the opening statement said that was inside the scope of the discussion, exactly? Or, alternatively, why is it a good idea to attempt to expand the scope of the discussion midway through it so that it tries to simultaneously handle two separate, complicated and rather contentious subjects – Levivich's long-term behaviour and the whole Tamzin-COMMTECHGATE kerfuffle – that only intersect in a single place? Because I feel like I'm losing my mind trying to understand what people think can be accomplished by conducting the discussion in this manner. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The primary derailment seems to have been kicked off by Thebiguglyalien, continuing his campaign of sniping at people on the WWU thread. The second wave of derailment came from BilledMammal parachuting in to... also continue his campaign of sniping at people on the WWU thread, while insinuating that this is all some kind of white knighting over an unspecified personal relationship. (I note that he has not felt the need to scold Thebiguglyalien for telling people to go fuck themselves, despite his having so much concern about civility in the WWU thread.)

  I realize I am not an impartial party here, but I do think that if someone is a neutral party and goes back to look at the timeline of things, it should be clear who is doing the bulk of the derailing here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am fairly impartial and also somewhat irritated at the gratuitous side-stepping of my original comment, so if no one minds I will derail the derailment by derailing it to a subsection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am directly addressing Tamzin's misconduct. By your own admittance, the purpose of Tamzin's plan, which would include their attacks on those opposing it, is to as I said, "screw over a lot of people" (which in that particular case would be well-meaning newbies who are getting into reviewing for the first time). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what the consequences of the proposed strike has to do with the specific accusation highlighted in the section title and my opening statement, Thebiguglyalien? Personally, when I notice misconduct and wish to "directly address" it, I summarise the situation at the most relevant community page immediately. For "high-stakes escalation and battle-grounding" from an administrator, that would be a new section at this page, starting the recall process, or going to ArbCom. Although it doesn't seem like you've tried any of those options, recall and ArbCom are still open, and you can directly address Tamzin's misconduct by suggesting sanctions in the subsection I've helpfully spun out below.

  In anticipation of your reply, I'd like to note that I'm not particularly interested in debating dictionary definitions with editors who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah that's kind of a problem considering the fact that Tamzin's conduct relating to COMMTECHGATE was not originally the topic of this thread. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not too involved in the whole WWU thing. I've commented on some parts of it here and there but I've not been involved in the extensive talk page discussions, which have apparently turned sour. I don't know how entrenched it is or whether or not ARBCOM are required, but what I do know is that Levivich's behaviour is largely a separate matter that can absolutely be investigated, evaluated and addressed at AN/ANI. I'm not sure what the best way forward at this point is honestly. and we might need uninvolved administrator help, but I think we have to do something because the train isn't going to unwreck itself. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to litigate whose fault it is, that this ANI discussion went off track, and the off-track portions seem to have been quarantined to the "moved" subsection below, anyway. I think it should be clear that, if anything is to be resolved here (as opposed to at ArbCom), then the focus should get back to what Tamzin has accused Levivich of, and if necessary what to do about it, and whether there is anything wrong with Tamzin having made those accusations, and if so what to do about it. And to a very large degree, these two issues should be evaluated individually, because neither one excuses the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Considering we have tossed the derailment into its own section I couldn't agree more with this whole comment. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 00:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Adding to what I said, it seems to me that if this ends up at ArbCom, there is a reasonably high probability of serious sanctions being placed upon both parties, as well as on anyone who ends up being seen as having derailed this ANI discussion. Consequently, it also seems to me that both Tamzin and Levivich should want to get this resolved here at ANI, and should each want to make the best case they can on their own behalf, and anyone who still contemplates arguing over off-topic stuff should stfu. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is that last bit really necessary? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Thank you for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Step 1 was to hear Tamzin's justification. Step 2 is to hear from the other editor! I can't believe "hear from the other editor" doesn't even make your list of steps. How can you keep an open mind or make an informed decision if you don't hear from both sides first? Levivich (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Only quoting Step 1 was to hear Tamzin's justification is an actively misleading recounting of @Maltazarian's post; immediately after that they said step 2 to evaluate that justification (by investigating Levivich's editing history and hearing what Levivich has to say about the allegations. Bolding own. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  What? I don't know how to reply to that. You've correctly stated what I said the first two steps were (albeit with half of step 2 is missing), and then you've immediately followed it up by saying that you cannot believe that one of the things you just noted was part of the steps is not part of the steps. Sorry but that just doesn't make any sense. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, struck, my eyes apparently missed that parenthetical when I read it. Thank you for making that step 2! :-) Levivich (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, glad it was just a misunderstanding. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, this is pretty unbecoming, WP:ASPERSIONS behavior, no less from an admin, and follows a pretty extensive amount of conduct issues from Tamzin on the whole WWU (up there with the implied endorsement of socially punishing "picket crossers" [if you argue against this, Tamzin's behavior broadly on this topic certainly isn't helping your case]). Would frankly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG recall; seems like an obvious case of lashing out over perceived dissidents, which has been common in the whole WWU fiacso on both sides (although truthfully much, much more on the pro-strike crowd). — Knightoftheswords 01:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  First, why recall? Second, why a BOOMERANG when AirshipJungleman29 is the original reporter? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Super Goku V, it's fairly clear that Knightoftheswords is not talking about "a BOOMERANG recall" against me, considering I am not an administrator and not eligible for recall. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  To add on to AJ29's comment, he provided a space for Tamzin to substantiate her allegations, so I'm in effect kind of treating it as a thread opened by her. — Knightoftheswords 19:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Serious accusation by User:Thebiguglyalien against User:Tamzin (moved)

• I am having trouble wrapping my head around how Tamzin feels it appropriate to accuse someone else of trying to sabotage Wikipedia, in the same discussion where they were the guiding force behind a pact to threaten the sabotage of Wikipedia as a means of leverage. Even if we were to assume that Levivich really is just trying to start arguments since ARBPIA5 set him off, I'd still much prefer that over the high-stakes escalation and battle-grounding that Tamzin has been engaged in since WP:COMMTECHGATE set them off. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Isn't Tamzin also an admin? WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  yes. toby ^{in solidarity} 00:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see anything obviously inappropriate about Tamzin's actions here. And I certainly don't see how Tamzin's guidance through the ongoing WP:COMMTECHGATE fiasco is relevant, or somehow hypocritical with their attitude towards Levivich. Please elaborate on what you're referring to as "high-stakes escalation" and "battle-grounding" here, too. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - Solidarity 00:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Alien's last comments on the issue were to tell everybody who disagreed with him,( and given previous comments, anybody who has not spoken out loudly enough against things he disagrees with on the COMMTECH issue issue) to go fuck themselves. So I do believe that, from his perspective, there's a BATTLEGROUND. I don't entirely believe he's right about who is engaging in it, though. I think it might be best for everybody, however, if this tangent isn't allowed to distract this thread; something to the effect of "you sided against me on one issue, so I'm going to oppose you on another, unrelated, issue", has already been brought up by Moneytrees about re:Levivich's approach to copyright issues doing a 180 after somebody active in those copyright issues !voted to iban him, but, small lapses aside, I'm pretty sure Alien doesn't indulge in that behaviour. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't even be mad, that's a really clever rhetorical trick to synthesize from those diffs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree with this assessment. I personally think that some of Tamzin's actions have been inappropriate, in particular I feel the "social consequences" bit of that one essay is giving "I'm not saying we should do it.. but we totally could and nobody would be able to stop us.." vibes, but I do not agree that Tamzin is threatening to sabotage Wikipedia (refusal to improve the wiki and causing direct damage to it are very different things) or that the main catalyst that set Tamzin off here was WP:COMMTECHGATE-related. Tamzin had already made a thread on Levivich's behaviour before COMMTECHGATE, and honestly looking at the recent logs of Levivich I think it would be very unwise to view this situation as a dispute between two editors or a COMMTECHGATE-related issue as opposed to an investigation into one editor's behaviour. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: there obviously is a dispute between two editors here, and that dispute is COMMTECHGATE-related, but what I meant here was that it would be a mistake to make that the focus of this discussion. You won't be able to get a good discussion on either Levivich's long-term behaviour or Tamzin's engagement with COMMTECHGATE by discussing both through the lens of a dispute between the two editors, as both subjects are much broader than where they intersect. You'd end up having a discussion that either fails to fully evaluate either of the subjects because it only looks at where they intersect, or what is essentially two separate discussions being shoehorned into one thread. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Tamzin's behavior in relation to CommTech has left a lot to desire, with repeated personal attacks:

  1. They've issued repeated personal attacks against Levavich, and then when Levivich asked them to stop instead doubled down.
  2. They've issued personal attacks against me, accusing me of having a transparently self-serving interpretation of policy, and then refused to explain what they meant by that
  3. They've issued personal attacks against SDeckelmann-WMF, accusing them of gaslighting
  4. They've issued personal attacks against various editors who object to some of what they call for as part of their proposed strike, accusing them of pretending to have poor reading comprehension, and that these objections are simply efforts to disrupt the petition.

  There are likely many more examples, but there is too much discussion on this for me to review, and I haven't been following it closely. I do want to note, however, that they have also engaged in WP:BLP violations; without any reliable sources to support their position they've accused named WMF employees of union-busting - of, in their words, potentially a crime or at least regulatory violation.

  Their behavior here, both towards the WMF employees and towards editors who haven't agreed with them, may be explained by them having a personal relationship with one of the employees who was made redundant, TNT, but that conflict of interest only makes this situation worse; they've called on editors to disrupt Wikipedia, without at any point informing the editors they made this request of that they have this conflict of interest. BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  In diff 3, Tamzin accused Levivich, not Selena Deckelmann, of gaslighting Chaotic Enby. @Tamzin is my interpretation of your comment here correct? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I might have misread who the personal attack in diff 3 was targeting, but regardless of who it was targeting it was inappropriate - and I would consider the BLP violations against WMF employees including Selena to be personal attacks, although the BLP violations are obviously far more serious. BilledMammal (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Saying that no one was saying something, in response to multiple comments wherein people said it, is gaslighting—if deliberate, at least, but I think I've made my case for why it's fair to assume it was. I don't really like using that word, since it's one of those words like "harassment" that can mean very different things to different people, but I just found this particularly blatant, especially given that it was coupled with the misrepresentation of what those four laws say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: I'm having trouble to confining your interpretation of BLP to any reasonable limits. Copyright violation is generally understood to be a serious civil infraction and potentially a crime. Does an admin violate BLP when they block an editor for copyvio? Must the blocking admin cite a newspaper saying that this editor has made copyright violations before the block can be made? What about an editor who socks around a WMF ban, exceeding authorized access to WMF servers potentially in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030? How much of user-conduct enforcement are we crippling under this interpretation just because Tamzin made a comment about internal matters? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  The text of WP:BLPTALK says some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community. Administrative issues extend to user-conduct enforcement but don't extend to leveling accusations of WMF employees, acting off-wiki, engaging in what is potentially a crime or at least regulatory violation.

  More generally, I see no justification for WMF employees to have less WP:BLP protections than non-WMF employees; if an editor accused Carlos Torres Vila, Jane Fraser (businesswoman), Luca de Meo, or any other CEO or executive of union-busting without any evidence aside from WP:OR, we would quickly shut that discussion down and probably sanction the editor. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, 'cause it'd be disruptive and there's no reason for it, not necessarily because of BLP; internal matters are different. I don't agree with your narrow construction of "administrative issues" to exclude issues that very much involve the enwiki community's ability to smoothly administer the project, and I have never seen the community act in a way that aligns with your interpretation, either; BLPTALK is very clearly meant to allow for open discussion of internal matters and nitpicking the wording against that goal is overly legalistic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have never seen the community act in a way that aligns with your interpretation I haven't either, but I've also never seen editors accuse WMF employees of criminal acts - have you?

  I also don't see this as nitpicking or preventing open discussion; to pivot to a different example, it's appropriate to discuss the WMF's spending and use of funds, but if you want to allege WMF employees are engaged in fraud then you need reliable secondary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  You must not remember Carolyn Doran. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  who? ltbdl (pull) 19:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  See Carolyn Doran, the Chief Operating Officer of WMF during early 2007, who left after a few months due to a criminal background. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 19:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  BM, whatever the resulting consensus on the rest of the issues in this thread, I think you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this proposed interpretation of policy, as I don't see any good coming from trying to dig in on this--it's too incoherent and infeasible a construction, whatever your feelings on Tamzin's broader conduct and objectives. In order for this project to survive in anything remotely similar to institution it has evolved into today, this community absolutely has to have free reign to openly discuss, dissect, characterize, and even speculate about the manner in which the WMF handles its operations and conducts itself as our partner in creating the content of our projects, and defining the values and vision of the movement. There is no reasonable or realistic iteration in how this discussion plays out where I see the community permitting a reading as restrictive as you propose, with its profound kneecapping of the informed consensus basis of our projects, and inherent general chilling of criticism of potentially legitimate (and severe) concerns about the actions of the Foundation.

  Yes, absolutely there is a difference between an individual, acting as an editor, making comments that push the boundaries of BLP or WP:WEIGHT for a random employee of a random company, and an individual, acting as a member of this community and volunteer of this project framing and deconstructing the actions of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you don't see that difference, then yes, we do have a problem, but bluntly it's with you and anyone else with a myopic enough view of the issues here to endorse this as at all viable. There is no reasonable way forward to being proper stewards of this great work in our own capacity as a community--not indeed any way forward to repairing the increasingly fraught relationship between the Foundation and the community and better aligning our visions on the values and future of the projects--without having exhaustive freedom of dialogue on certain issues.

  And before there is need to ask: is there a point at which we can conceive statements so wild, unsupported and defamatory that we would be compelled to stop it, even if it touched upon internal movement matters. Sure, of course. But nothing Tamzin, or any party that I have seen, has stated in summarizing or characterizing the facts or opining on the proper response, comes within a thousand AUs of such a place. I get it that you are opposed to the speculative action, and particularly concerned that those who do not endorse it, or even oppose it, do not get set upon as scabs--believe me, I have mixed feelings of my own all over the place here. But this strategy is just not the way forward. You've got plenty of ground to argue over here, but I think I can tell you with confidence that trying to suppress any descriptions of the WMFs conduct as unethical or even dubiously legal will not be produce good results for your positions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  To preface this; with just a couple of comments on this interpretation of policy I don't think we're in DEADHORSE/DROPTHESTICK territory, but nonetheless I had already stepped back from this discussion.

  However, I do want to correct one thing; I'm not trying to suppress descriptions of the WMFs conduct as unethical or even dubiously legal. I agree that those discussions are appropriate, even necessary - I have even organized them myself at times, including at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6#RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign.

  I do think the point that we are compelled to stop it is when allegations of actual criminal acts are made; this should only be done if we are using high-quality sources to support them. Maybe the community disagrees with me on this, but I don't think we can rebuild our relationship with the WMF so long as we tolerate that behavior.

  With all that said, I am going to drop this topic now, but I do hope editors think this over and consider where we should draw the line. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it is likely that the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a company with about 650 employees, has engaged in some kind of union-busting. I have not alleged that any particular person at the WMF is responsible for this, and it's entirely possible that the decision to target union members was something that emerged unspoken from several people's priorities and from general organizational culture. If somewhere in the weeks of debate I've said anthing that implied I think a specific person did anything illegal, please let me know and I'll correct it, but I don't believe I have said that. Beyond that, please see WP:BLPGROUP: The Wikimedia Foundation is not a living person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  You said they engaged in union busting. Whether this alleged decision was made by silent understanding or explicit decision doesn't matter - making the allegation without sources is a BLP violation either way.

  Further, even if you didn't single out individual WMF executives as involved in this - and you do, such as SDeckelmann-WMF - the group of WMF executives is sufficient small that the exception to WP:BLPGROUP kicks in: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

  You also didn't follow the guidance at BLPGROUP of When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. BilledMammal (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  There are dozens of people, many of whose names aren't even publicly known, who were involved in the decision to disband CommTech—not just executives. I have no opinion on which of them, if any, personally desired to bust the union. If there are previous comments I've made that I need to clarify in this regard, please let me know. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Copyright violation is generally understood to be a serious civil infraction and potentially a crime - I guess that differs by where you reside. Generally no one cares in more conservative/poorer countries (Balkans, Ukraine, members of CIS, Southeast Asia), or countries which directly oppose "the West" (Russia, Belarus, China, Iran). ~2026-35367-52 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the best evidence of my behavior leaving "a lot to desire" is that I called out disingenuity when you invented a new definition of WP:INVOLVED in an to piggy-back onto someone else's overt attempt to deny me resysop for the offense of thinking it's okay for editors to deny their labor to the WMF, and that I called out disingenuity when you and others repeatedly quoted a sentence fragment from User:Tamzin/What would an editorial strike look like? without quoting the context that modifies it, then honestly I'm doing better than I thought. Unlike with Levivich, I do believe your participation in that matter has been in good faith, just deeply misguided, but yes, particularly surrounding my resysop you said some things that just weren't true, and I (and others) called it out.

  I trust that readers of this thread will understand how much patience I've shown you, when you're here saying, even weeks later, that I've called on editors to disrupt Wikipedia, which isn't true and everyone knows isn't true, and that I've hidden the fact that TNT and I know each other off-wiki, which has been linked from my userpage and from theirs since before I was an admin. For what it's worth, TNT and I don't talk much, and haven't talked much in years, but I find it quizzical that you now, and Levivich before you, see it as some gotcha that I'm close with (or, rather, years ago was close with) one of the people I think it was wrong for the WMF to fire. Yes, knowing some of these people (not just TNT) as real flesh-and-blood humans made me more empathetic to their plight of being laid off by a company that won't even call it a layoff in the name of improving a product that that company has no plans to improve. I'll stand guilty as charged for caring about human beings. No interests are in conflict: I don't stand anything to gain personally from TNT or anyone else involved having a job at the WMF, and if you can't see the difference between wanting people to be treated like humans and having COIs with them, that's on you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC), ed. 09:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't attempt to deny you resysop; all I did was ask that you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED in relation to editors who opposed your stike, on the grounds of your support for social sanctions against editors who cross the picket line.

  I wasn't aware that Levivich had also raised the TNT issue, but they were right to do so. Our general expectations are that conflicts of interest are disclosed when involved, and a disclosure on a sub-page of your userpage is not sufficient for this - it should have been disclosed prominently in the petition. As for the rest, you don't need to be positioned to gain anything personally - conflicts of interest exist between friends, especially ones close enough to have spent months living under the same roof. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  My apologies, someone else attempted to prevent the resysop and you merely appended your novel reading of policy to that quixotic attempt. I'll amend my comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A short, piquant, intermission

I was surprised to see this, but not astounded. Levivich and Tamzin have butted heads repeatedly of late, and other attempts to find solutions have been unsuccessful, for many reasons. Some opinions:

Tamzin has made a pretty large leap here. The claim that Levivich is performing a slow-walk, work-to-rule, gentle sabotage campaign actually feels generally right to me subjectively, but I do not think that there is any clear objective evidence that this is so. I have invoked the OSS manual myself a few times, and, again, the analysis feels right; this, however, isn’t enough to move forward on its own merit.

Tamzin’s exhaustion with Levivich is insufficient reason not to be more diligent. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you haven’t the time or energy to make a cogent and thorough ‘case’ for deliberate (or, even, accidental) destructive editing, then making that claim (absent extensive and straightforward evidence found and presented) is not a good idea.

Tamzin is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and continues to use the admin toolset, as well as basic editing, to further that goal. Tamzin’s efforts towards that purpose , if not universally so, are - in balance - clearly and overwhelmingly to the benefit of the project.

Levivich seems to have quit regular editing - very much in the ways described above. A sudden change from creative encyclopedia-making to fulltime projectspace commentary does indeed seem to coincide with the TBAN and other discussions of problematic editing. Timing, tone, targeting….it fits well.

Levivich invokes edit counts and the ‘cult of creation’ very often, much like many other members of the “grumpy greybeard” clan which seems to rest on its laurels from yesteryear while maintaining a deep disdain for the whippersnappers who disagree with them, now, 20 years later. Yet, as noted above, Lev's generation of new, or better, prose for the project has ground to a halt. Voluntarily.

Levivich’s efforts towards the purpose we all (purportedly) have here are now limited to comments on protocol and procedure that seem more histrionic and peevish than helpful or productive. Their work is now, apparently, much more of a sea anchor than a spinnaker.

And, lastly, Levivich is - by their own admission - NOTHERE. To quote them directly: if editors want to strike, for whatever reason, I support that as a valid protest action -- and [I] have been on strike for years, not that anyone's noticed lol.(emphasis mine) An editor who has “been on strike”, i.e. withdrawn useful editing, who thinks that abandonment of purpose is funny (lol!) and who has become a thorn in the side of innumerable productive or at least well-meaning editors is not of benefit here. I would give them thanks for their service and effort, and then send them on their way, so that they may be of benefit elsewhere. Because that’s what happens if you’re NOTHERE. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In full disclosure, I am the editor with 600 edits, for what that is worth. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I am the editor with 600 edits, well, (over) 800 now. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"Levivich invokes edit counts and the ‘cult of creation’ very often" is not true. I did invoke edit count with you, but you're probably the second or third person in 8 years whose edit count I've invoked. Nevertheless, I greatly respect that you made the full disclosure, because some others in this thread did not. Levivich (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the misrepresentation; it is totally my failure of due diligence. I have struck that phrase. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 12:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, 8yrs/40k edits, but what have you done around here lately?

Well, I didn't edit at all between February 24 and May except for a handful of user talk page comments. Since May, I've made 144 edits (before this thread), almost all participating in discussions. Those 144 edits included:

• Casting the first "not endorse" vote at a WP:XRV thread
• Speaking up at an ARCA against an editor being sanctioned.
• Voting in some RFCs
• Answering a 2-second edit request
• Suggesting a change to an Arbcom motion
• Speaking up to Jimbo in defense of another editor who Jimbo said "claim[ed] that I said things that I didn't say"
• Commenting in an MOS discussion
• Fixing a verification failure in a TFA I was reading (about one of my favorite kings)
• Commenting in some WP:VPP discussions

Most of those 144 edits, though, were about the Community Tech team being disbanded. My participation in that community discussion, across multiple pages, included:

• Criticizing the trustees and trustee election process
• Pointing out the 90-day presumption of protected union activity under CA law
• Advocating to the WMF for increasing commtech's budget and "to retain the good people on the old commtech team, which I'm told just might be all of them"
• Asking for clarification about whether the layoffs or the union came first
• Encouraging another editor's idea of a "Community Wishlist Fund" fundraising banner
• Voting in a watchlist-message RFC (and responding to a mass ping asking for further input) (and voting on an interim solution to help form consensus)
• Clarifying that I'm not anti-strike because I knew that my contrarian, "speak up" habit might give the mistaken impression that I was anti-strike
• Explaining why I was waiting to sign the strike petition
• Seeking clarification about whether the entire team was laid off or just some of them (the WMF responded)
• Proposing "Option 5" in the Brooke Vibber Day RFC which received like a half-dozen votes as 1st or 2nd choice but didn't gain consensus
• Asking the WMF for more clarification about whether there were enough open positions at the same comp
• Criticizing the WMF for their communications and suggesting better words
• Moving the entire thread to its own subpage, a chore that multiple editors wanted done but nobody did it, so I did it

I don't know how anybody looks at those 144 edits in the past two months and concludes that I'm not WP:HERE, or disruptive, or a WWII saboteur. Those are all examples of productive, constructive non-mainspace editing, of helping to build an encyclopedia. Lots of people contribute like this, including everybody in this thread, and some do mostly, or even only, this. I shouldn't be sitebanned for this, I should be thanked for it.

Of course, I was thanked for it, or at least encouraged. That first "not endorse" vote was followed by 8 more, whereas before me there were 0. (That doesn't mean I caused a swing, but I'm at least with consensus.) That ARCA I commented in? Another editor quoted me with approval. Those RFCs I voted in? They got "per Levivich" votes . That change I suggested in the Arbcom motion? An arb pinged me for my thoughts on a revised draft, and the change I suggested ended up being made. For those 145 edits in May and June, I've received 22 "thanks": a ratio of 1 "thanks" for every 6.5 edits. Overall, in 2025 and 2026, I made 1,160 edits (an all-time low in activity level for me) and received 151 "thanks", a ratio of 1:7.6. In the past 12 months, I've also received barnstars, kittens, and other appreciation messages on my user talk page, like this, this, this, this, and this. And that's without doing pretty much any editing to mainspace.

Now, none of that means I'm a great editor or anything. But it does mean that I (for good reason) understood my edits were appreciated: the ones from the last two months, and the last two years, and before that.

I've received thanks lately, but you know what I haven't received lately? A single user talk page message from anyone raising concerns that I was being disruptive in any way.

Tamzin's three bullet points in her initial post here are easily dispensed with: consideration is a requirement for severance agreements (and all contracts), I didn't make that up, it's Contract Law 101, and very easy to source: ("A severance agreement, like all contracts, must be supported by consideration.") ("As a contract, your severance agreement must include offer, acceptance, and consideration to be enforceable.") ("If your severance agreement doesn’t have consideration, it might not be legally enforceable."); silence is not consensus -- as I explained, just because I didn't want to argue doesn't mean I consented, and I don't care that there is an essay arguing otherwise; and, "we could not pre-select certain staff for new roles" does not mean "they were required to lay workers off". I've been wrong about plenty of things, but I wasn't wrong about any of those three things.

So anyway, that's what I've done around here lately. Look at any slice of time in the past couple of years, and you'll find editing just like this. And if you don't siteban me, I might even do more.

And you know what I haven't done lately? Edit warred, bludgeoned, badgered, harassed, name-called or otherwise been uncivil, socked, POV-pushed, RGW'd, canvassed, crusaded, failed to drop the stick, exhibited battleground behavior, hounded, violated copyright, disrupted anything or anybody, violated any policy or guideline, or even failed to sign my posts with four tildes.

This is already long enough so if anyone has any questions for me or wants me to address anything I haven't addressed, let me know. Levivich (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think, ultimately, given that the crux of this argument is whether or not you are here to build an encyclopedia, I would really like to hear your explanation as to why the fact that LLMs are replacing wikipedia is a good sign: or, in your own words Declining page views [in the context of our readership being funneled to LLMs] is a sign of an evolving internet, not a problem to be fixed, IMO..

To be clear, I don't disagree with the rest of your comment in that thread that it's a good thing for our content to reach its audience, even if that's through modern Clippy. But, honestly, if you're arguing that you aren't WP:NOTHERE and one of your most recent edits is appears to be you arguing that the decline of Wikipedia is somehow a sign of the internet evolving... well, I'm a liberatarian Alaskan; I'm sure that's synonymous with contrarian conspiracy theorist in the eyes of some people. But it's not a hard sell.

I also can't agree with your opinion that you haven't gone on a RGW crusade; I'm not going to pretend to know all the WPO drama over the years. But you appear to have spent more time, recently; trying to use Wikipedia talk pages to continue WPO discussions that you aren't involved in than editing mainspace; which, to be fair, given your strike, is probably not hard. And I'm sorry for not AGF -- but you don't like people you've had years long disputes with going onto your talk page to let you know that you weren't coming across well. In fact, you banned @Tryptofish from your talk page after he'd done so. But then I see you, just a few weeks earlier, having engaged in what is essentially the same type of posting on AndyTheGrump's talkpage... I'm not sure if RGW is exactly the right term here, but banning somebody from your talkpage for doing something that you, yourself, believe in doing...

And that's before we get to the civility issue; you say that telling an Ip editor to create an account is passive-aggressively biting and not really civil. Which is fair. But then, just a short while later, I see you saying things like Useight, forgive me for being blunt as a member of the peanut gallery, but it's 2026. Are you seriously unfamiliar with two-factor authentication? Like you've never used it before? This is pretty standard technology that's been around for decades and has been a standard requirement on the web for 10 years or so. and insisting that phrasing it like that was nice!. And then, more recently, referring the the community at large as engaging in total lunacy here? is not, in any way, shape, or form, uncivil?

Most people apply double standards; it's just human nature. But this goes beyond that. Something is fine when you do it, but when somebody else does the equivalent, then they're behaving uncivilly and deserve to be banned from your talkpage. When an admin doesn't respond on their talkpage for years (because nobody's talking to them), it's a sign that they can't be trusted and aren't in touch, and when they respond by saying that they't not dormat, just less active, is spin that would make a politician blush.. You starting on much the same pattern of not-editing, and says that is up for you to decide if you want to be part of the community or not, and your response is to insist that the only question is whether the community wants me to remain part of the community or not. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to get into a debate about Wikipedia and LLMs here. You're not characterizing my position accurately, but I don't care, this isn't the time or place.

No, I haven't spent more time recently talking about WPO than mainspace editing. Flat untrue, and one discussion months ago does not prove that to be true. Can you find a second example? How many times have I brought up WPO in the past year? Once? Twice? I don't remember the number, but I'm sure I've edited mainspace more than once or twice or three times.

I banned Tryp from my talk page due to 7 years of history between us that I'm not going to get into here.

I stand by my comments both about the IP and Usesight (not all of which you've included). They are not the same thing. I received two "thanks" (at least one from an admin iirc) for the Usesight comment you quoted btw.

Calling something "lunacy" is not uncivil and the very definition you linked in that discussion backed me up on that because it didn't define it as "offensive" (unlike other terms). I've explained myself to you on this at length in that discussion. It's not the same thing as calling a person a "lunatic."

You have a problem with me saying "spin that would make a politician blush," but you don't have a problem with Tamzin calling me a sabateur, gaslighting, a troll, and many other things... and you're talking to me in the same breath about double standards? Levivich (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Now a question for you, GLL: these edits I've listed above, are they good edits or not? Productive or not? WP:HERE, or not? Levivich (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why an admin "thanking" you for a comment is relevant, but I see the idea of high-ranking users "thanking" you for comments is something you've brought up twice now; could you clarify why that's important to you?

You can take my silence on other, unrelated issues, however you'd like; none of my examples have anything to do with Tamzin, I don't believe, so I'm not sure why you're expecting me to comment on their behaviour. Could you explain why that matters? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't want to answer my questions, that's fine, I'll still answer yours. That a comment that you point to is disruptive is also a comment that other editors thanked me for is important to me because it shows me that other editors do not view the comment as disruptive; i.e. your view is not necessarily the consensus view. That one is an admin matters to me because they've been elected based on having the community's trust. I do in fact value an admin's opinion about my edits more than editor with like 10 edits. So doesn't everyone else, I just say that out loud where others don't. Edit count and perms aren't the be all and end all but they're not irrelevant either. I expect you to comment on their behavior because this thread is about both of our behavior and you are not commenting on mine. I don't think you really need to ask why it's important to me that someone would call me a gaslighter, troll, etc., repeatedly, I think you understand why that would

be important to someone, I don't think I need to explain to you why insults and false accusations are hurtful. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're taking my not commenting on something as my having any given view on it; I know above you've really made a point that when you're silent, you'd like them to listen to your view I didn't want to argue doesn't mean I consented(to agreeing with a certain position). But here, you're taking silence as an indication that I don't have a problem with something; what's the difference?

Similarly, I find it interesting that you say you value an admin's opinion about my edits more than editor with like 10 edits when, above, in one of the conversations I linked you say I don't think you would have cared about the author of the message; rather, I think the content of the message will persuade you. when it came to somebody dismissing your comments. Which is it? We should be persuaded by the claim that somebody, semi-anonymously, gave you an upvote, or we should care about the content of what somebody says?

Speaking of which: you've had several admins say they are concerned about your behaviour, and find it disruptive. You value admin's opinions more than mine, it would appear: so why have you responded to me and not, say, Vanadmonde? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems that every message you write to me is an attempt to catch me in a gotcha, to demonstrate that I'm a liar or a hypocrite or a fool or a troll or something. Nevertheless I will answer your further questions.

I'm answering your questions and not Vanamonde's because you replied to a post of mine in which I said I'll answer any questions anyone has, and Vanamonde has not. If he does, I'll answer his questions as well.

"I don't think you would have cared about the author of the message" was in direct response to someone saying they were not going to read a message because of who the author was. (Spoiler: it was me.) It had nothing to do with anyone's opinion of anyone's editing or perms or edit count. That's not the same thing as what I said about the relative weight I give to admins vs editors with 10 edits when it comes to their opinion of my editing.

It is not true that I have taken your not commenting on something as your having any given view on it, and I never said that you have any given view on anything. I answered your question "...I'm not sure why you're expecting me to comment on their behaviour. Could you explain why that matters?" by explaining why I expected you to comment on their behavior and why that matters (and you're trying to use my answer against me, by attempting to show I've contradicted myself). Levivich (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Asking for your perspective isn't intended to come across as a gotcha; they're questions.

I do find that I have to contest your statement that I never said that you have any given view on anything; just above, you directly told me you don't have a problem with Tamzin calling me a sabateur, gaslighting, a troll, and many other things.... These two statements are clearly not compatible with each other.

And, okay, to carry on, I'll be the one to directly ask it -- what you do make of Vanadmonde's statement, earlier in the thread? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 07:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That statement you quoted ("you don't have a problem...") ended in a question mark, which wasn't included in your quote. That's a question, not a statement. I didn't say you have a given view, I asked you ... about a seeming contradiction in something you said, same as you've been asking me about seeming contradictions.

Vanamonde said above, "But this is the time for Levivich to show that he is still WP:HERE." So the whole point of my long post with all the links and diffs above in this subthread is to directly respond to that by showing that I have still been WP:HERE since returning from a two month break a month ago. I can show similar links and diffs for almost any other month for the last 8 years. So now we see whether or not other people think that's WP:HERE or not. Levivich (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And I think I'll step back and let others decide whether or not that was a genuine question or bewildered statement.

And I apologize, I could have been clearer about which part I was most interested in hearing your thoughts about. What's your response to Vanamonde's comments re: I agree with Tamzin that they have become a problem. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

My response is that I disagree that I have become a problem. I am not a problem, I am a productive editor. Even when my editing activity is relatively low (150 edits in the last ~3 months), and even when I don't edit mainspace, I'm still productive and not a problem, and I base that conclusion on the edits I've made, and the feedback I've received to those edits, as detailed in my OP above. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

”...none of my examples have anything to do with Tamzin, I don't believe, so I'm not sure why you're expecting me to comment on their behaviour. Could you explain why that matters?” Probably because, GreenLipstickLesbian, you are not the prosecution interrogating the accused, but an editor engaging in conversation with another. A key part of the civility policy is treating all other editors with respect, which normally means no writing “gotcha”-type comments or refusing to answer another editor’s questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 And asking questions of somebody brings your mind to a prosecution interrogating the accused, not engaging in conversation? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

When you refuse to answer questions going the other way, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 The only question(s) I believe I haven't directly answered is these edits I've listed above, are they good edits or not? Productive or not? WP:HERE, or not? Which, well... I responded to the initial posting of those edits by asking about several others, all recent, just just outside the self-selected window. I thought my answer would be clear enough It's impossible for me to give a more direct answer to any of the other questions without violating whatever policies we have about posting offsite communications publically and/or engaging in conversation on topics innappropriate for AN/I. I'm sorry if that's coming across as evasive, but my hands are a little bit tied here. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

What offsite communications involve me? Levivich (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw one more thing about banning Tryp from my talk pages since you brought it up: that's an example of me reducing and avoiding disruption for the benefit of the community. It's not even really meant as an insult or offense to Tryp, even though the act is inherently insulting and most people would take offense to it. But the point is just to cease communication for everyone's benefit: mine, his, everyone else's. One time years ago I didn't ban this other editor from my talk page, instead I engaged with him and tried to reconcile our differences, and I got an IBAN for it. So I don't try to talk to and reconcile with editors I am in disputes with anymore, because other people say that's disruptive. I recently made an exception to that, and it prompted this filing. That's what I get. Levivich (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I am certainly not one if Levivich's biggest fans, but, as a genuine lunatic, I don't need GreenLipstickLesbian to take offence on my behalf. Please drop that stick. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger I'm not taking offense on your behalf; I don't think you're arguing that referring to editors who disagree with you as engaging in "lunacy" or similar is a compliment. The fact that the word has other connotations is not really relevant to any of my points here. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Since Levivich's banning me from his talk (which I have honored) has come up a lot here, I'd like to present some specific diffs, and let uninvolved editors judge for themselves what they mean. It started when I posted this on his talk page: . Levivich had said that he was considering appealing his ArbCom topic ban. Judge for yourselves whether what I said was constructive or not. Shortly afterwards, I added this: . The diff of what I was referring to there was this: , and what I was saying was in the context of a possible appeal to ArbCom. His reaction was to revert me, and ban me from his talk: . I don't care that he rejected what I said or asked me to stay away, because that's not important, as I see it. But he was considering appealing an ArbCom sanction that was partly prompted by his arguing during the ArbCom case that being right is (or should be) enough, regardless of conduct (in this case, being dismissive and insulting to other editors). And his inclination was to make the appeal by arguing that he had done nothing wrong, and that it was, instead, the fault of the Arbs, some of whom should perhaps be recalled. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Levivich's biggest fan these days, but the notion that they aren't WP:HERE because they are focused on project space seems wrong to me. Project space contributions can have a positive impact on article space, and Levivich's contributions to Project space are an example of that; their contributions to LUGSTUBS and LUGSTUBS2, for example, were instrumental in getting those proposals passed, and those both had a significant positive impact on the encyclopedia. BilledMammal (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Levivich's account of their recent activity looks fine to me. If it's light on content creation then that's fine too because we have a long-standing policy, WP:CHOICE, which explains that Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time.

But, of course, we want the encyclopedia built and so, per WP:NOTFORUM, we should encourage editors to choose that activity rather than dropping out or spending all their time in talking-shops like the Village Pump. The WMF has a strategy for this and asked for feedback. I gave them my thoughts on the power of positive feedback but have been disappointed by the lack of further discussion and activity over there. We need more carrot and less stick!

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure how's listing personal achievements is supposed to support your case ? .n⠀eandert⠀hals8 08:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You may have missed ”But it does mean that I (for good reason) understood my edits were appreciated: the ones from the last two months, and the last two years, and before that.” ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This continues to dodge every criticism I and others have lodged in this thread, Levivich. No one is claiming that you haven't been heavily involved in internal discusisons in this time; that's the exact opposite of what we're saying, that it's all you do and that your focus seems to be on "winning" those discusssions, which your own analysis of your edits bears out. Similarly, your response to the three recent incidents I highlight completely misses the point: You're continuing to argue the substance of these things, when my point is that the substantive points you choose to argue over are selected to distract and disrupt. The fact that you're now on, what, your fourth comment objecting to my very boring, good-faith revert at WP:WWUS, and still can't explain what your actual problem was with the revert, I think should suffice to demonstrate the difference between relitigating the substance of the arguments you get into and analyzing whether those arguments are conducted in good faith.

If you want to actually engage with the criticisms here, I think the first questions to answer are: Do you see why someone might look at a thread where you repeatedly object to the procedural theory behind a revert without offering any substantive objection, in response to someone who you've repeatedly been in conflict with, and conclude that you are just looking for something to argue over? Do you see why other people might see it as disruptive for you to frequently get into lengthy arguments about tangential topics that don't actually advance the object of the thread you're in? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To answer your two questions:

1. There is no "thread where [I] repeatedly object to the procedural theory behind a revert without offering any substantive objection," that didn't happen, you're completely mischaracterizing my comments in that discussion, which are these three edits:
   • "It's not consensus" -- that's the whole comment. Silence isn't consensus. That's not an "object[ion] to the procedural theory behind a revert," that's an objection to your taking my silence as consensus, when it wasn't.
   • "...I don't want to argue with you, don't mistaken that for agreeing with you. You want to revert an edit I made, fine, that's no big deal..." -- I am explicitly not objecting to being reverted, I said it's "fine." I said I didn't want to argue. Not wanting to argue is not the same thing as arguing.
   • "Accusing me of trolling is not cool." -- It's not.

   Anybody describing the above three comments as "repeatedly object to the procedural theory behind a revert" is not being accurate. No, I don't understand why anyone would read those comments, where I'm explicitly trying not to argue, as "just looking for something to argue over." That's not an accurate characterization, at all, not even close.

2. I do not "frequently get into lengthy arguments about tangential topics that don't actually advance the object of the thread." Just like I didn't "repeatedly object" to anything, I haven't "frequently" got into "lengthy arguments...that don't actually advance ... the thread." My participation in threads, as demonstrated by the diffs I posted above, is constructive, and advances the thread. You have provided no diffs -- once again, no diffs -- in support of your characterization. I think what you mean is that I often join threads when I disagree with the emerging consensus. That's true, that's the "hold on a minute" thing that Rhododendrites mentioned above. It's not disruptive. And it's not cool of you to accuse me of gaslighting, trolling, sabotage, etc., based on my expressing opinions you disagree with, or even that most people disagree with. Disagreement is not disruptive.

Levivich (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. If I've been prone to frustration regarding all of your high-school-debate-style antics, it's been because I literally was a high school debater, and a high school debate judge after that—the kind of annoying judge who'd hold the debaters after the round to lecture them on the finer points of rhetoric. I know what it sounds like when someone is doing everything possible to dodge a question and answer a slightly different question and hope that no one spots the difference, and it can be frustrating when some other people indeed don't spot the difference. So let's use this comment as an example:

• When someone calls you out, first you ignore the parts of their comment that are inconvenient to you. Here, that would be me saying You're continuing to argue the substance of these things, when my point is that the substantive points you choose to argue over are selected to distract and disrupt. You can't win on this point, so you act as if it wasn't made.
• Then, you find an issue you think you can win on, in this case, relitigating the substance of the WWUS revert.
  • You find an incredibly narrow hair to split (That's not an "object[ion] to the procedural theory behind a revert," that's an objection to your taking my silence as consensus, when it wasn't), making an "X not Y" argument without explaining why Y isn't a kind of X (when at face value it would appear to be), and then insist that with the hair split thusly, you are right and I am wrong.
  • Your core contention is that you didn't repeatedly make procedural objections, which happens to be false, so you have to find a way to change the facts. You selectively quote yourself to leave out the part of your second comment where you continued to make the same procedural point (Silence is not consensus, and I haven't been silent.), which of course both is repeating the objection and continuing to argue over nothing, but you use the truncated quote to support the opposite reading and accuse me of misrepresenting you.
  • Rather than merely argue that there are multiple ways to look at this, you then bring this together to insist that a plainly evident reading of your actions—that you repeatedly raised procedural objections to an edit you couldn't identify any issue with—is not just incorrect, but something no reasonable person could possible believe.
  • You dodge the part about how this was a dispute you provoked with someone you were already, by your own admission, in conflict with, because the narrative only works if it was me going after you, not you following me to a section I maintained, declining to discuss your edit when invited, and then finding something to argue over once it appeared you'd lost interest.
• You tackle the second question through the same approach of denying the premise:
  • You're facing a thread full of people (starting with my first comment) discussing instances of you getting into lengthy arguments about tangential topics, so you deflect that by saying no diffs have been provided, as if no previous comments in the thread count.
  • The core thing you need to do here is avoid engaging with the criticism that you look for arguments to win irrespective of whether they're beneficial to anyone but you, so you claim that I and others are making the exact opposite argument: that your opinions are bad. In fact, there's a telling lack of criticism of your opinions in this thread; I don't even think you have particularly radical opinions on the WMF/WWU thing. But, by framing this as about you disagree[ing] with the emerging consensus and insisting that Disagreement is not disruptive you succeed at refuting a claim that I wasn't making—that your opinions are disruptive.
  • You take the most sympathetic thing going for you here—that I've accused you of deliberate sabotage, which really is quite a thing to accuse someone of—and say it's based on my [Levivich] expressing opinions you [Tamzin] disagree with. You don't say what those opinions are, and don't present any evidence of how they've motivated me, or of how they could have motivated me when this is a dispute going back months and spanning a range of unrelated threads. It doesn't matter. By taking the thing where you're most liable to earn sympathy and tying it to that unsubstantiated claim, you hopefully shore up your position a bit.

This kind of shady question-dodging is, by the way, what I had in mind when I used the word "gaslighting", which as I've already said isn't really a word that I like. But, whatever you want to call answering one question while pretending to answer another, I don't think it's good. It's the reason I've long avoided having any 1:1 discussions with you. It's the reason I didn't want to take you to AN/I. In a community built on trust, what are you supposed to do when someone breaks out this playbook of misrepresentation and exhaustion and uses it against you? Apparently to some people the answer is "Keep your mouth shut", but if that's the answer I think we just need to give up on the whole trust-based community thing. I don't want to do that. I want to edit in a community where if someone is being rhetorically dishonest, you can say they are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's what you call a rhetorical evisceration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No it's not? This again feels like "bitch eating crackers", where a completely normal response is being dissected to all hell and called "gaslighting" because, as far as I can tell, Tamzin really heavily dislikes Levivich.

Regarding the "silence is not consensus" thing: silence is not consensus, Tamzin was plainly in the wrong, and that's not a "procedural objection". While I understand that Levivich's I-object-but-not-really response here was kind of annoying, the basic fact is they had a perfectly good reason to object to that edit, and declined to do so because they didn't want to get in an argument with someone who (as we've seen) clearly hates them.

It's also not even weird to suspect that people who dislike you because you got in a contentious argument with them dislike you because you were on the other side of that argument... or in other words, for your opinions. That's certainly not gaslighting, and like the accusation of sabotage I regard accusations of gaslighting here as a big WP:ASPERSION that's not even close to being backed up.

At this point I support an IBAN because clearly these two can't get along. Loki (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I was plainly in the wrong by assuming that if someone didn't respond to a low-stakes "Okay if I revert this?"-type message for 15 hours, and was still editing, and a second person supported reversion, that was the exact type of mild consensus documented at WP:Silence and consensus, an explanatory essay with 3,589 backlinks? I mean fair enough if that's your view, but I don't think my approach to that incredibly boring editorial dispute was any different than how most people would handle it. As to Levivich' response, I have been editing Wikipedia on and off for half my life and I have never before had someone object to an edit and refuse to say why, let alone act indignant at being expected to explain their objection. If that's common in some parts of the 'pedia and I've never encountered it, I'd love to hear from people who've seen it.

people who dislike you because you got in a contentious argument with them dislike you because you were on the other side of that argument → Levivich and I are in agreement that I accused him of being systemically NOTHERE months before he chose to show up to a discussion I was already involved in and start arguing with people. (Actually, Levivich says this has been going on for over a year, although I'm not sure what he's referring to prior to my ARM post in January.) Nor could his opinions on CommTechGate have strengthened my existing, disclosed desire to see him sitebanned, as after a month I still don't know what his opinions are on CommTechGate; I only know his opinions on a bunch of sideline PVP matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I want to put on the record that I strongly object to a 2-way IBAN. She's attacking me, I'm not attacking. My only problem with her is that she's attacking me, otherwise I have no personal problem with her (we've disagreed on various issues, but that's not a personal problem). This isn't a 2-way issue, it's 1-way, and I am the victim, not the perpetrator. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think i agree that edit count is a useless metric at some point (maybe a useful heuristic),

but i also think there are no WP:UNBLOCKABLEs. This convo is getting complicated enough without trying to appeal either to levivichs plethora/lack of edits, behavior is sufficient scope i feel.

i have no opinion yet on any of this, have no time to read beyond this thread, but i feel votes to keep levivich due to his prolific prior work vs votes to sanction due to his nonprolific recent work are misguided in similar direction. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 09:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, I have to agree that Tamzin's behavior is not a model for proper behavior, and that at least puts the adminship at risk. That's not to say Levivitch (can I just say Lev, I don't know them and I often or at least sometimes don't agree with them but it is easier) is a model either, but they are not an admin. Apparently, Tamzin has thought for a long time that Lev is close to the worse thing you can be on this project! That means one thing, especially for an admin, pursue dispute resolution in a dignified manner to settlement. If you can't model dispute resolution, we have a problem.

As for HERE, one thing English Wikipedia is not generally for is activism and advocacy. Nor is it for purity tests about Unionism at work (something I may have general agreement and even be a willing part of OFF ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA but I know we are volunteers HERE to produce an an NPOV encyclopedia, not other things). I think those who want to lead a movement or be a movement, need to think long and hard about separating those hats. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has been ongoing for over two days now, with no end in sight, and has quickly devolved into bickering. How is anyone supposed to cut through this mess and decide on an appropriate solution? Can we please take a step back, lay out the major accusations in a succinct manner, and try to bring this to a close? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Levivich, I think where a lot of us are at is that we're not sold on the accusations of sabotage but still concerned that you're approaching discussions in a needlessly combative and confrontational way that makes resolving disagreements very difficult. Looking back at how you handled the discussions that have been brought up here, is there anything you regret or would do differently in the future? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ: can you be more specific, like linking to discussions where you think my approach has been problematic? There is a ton of text in this thread and I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. (Generally speaking, of course there are things I regret and would do differently in the future.) Levivich (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I was (and am) mainly interesting in hearing any broader reflections you might have. But if you'd like a specific example, do you think you handled the silence-is-consensus discussion productively? Obviously if you were trying to avoid an unhelpful argument with Tamzin, you didn't succeed—why do you think that was? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ: I'm sorry, I wouldn't know where to begin with a "broader reflection." I literally don't know what you mean by those words. A reflection on what, exactly? Life? Wikipedia? My 8 years of editing? Just my last month of editing? Commtechgate/WWU? Tamzin? What is the topic about which I'm to reflect? My OP in this subsection was a broader reflection, a self-audit and self-analysis of my last month of editing. I literally read all 145 of my edits over the past month. But I guess that's not the broader reflection you were interested in hearing? So I'm left wondering what you want me to address that I haven't already addressed?

  Is my asking the above questions an example of my being "needlessly combative and confrontational way that makes resolving disagreements very difficult", in your view? Because in my view, it's a necessary clarification to reach understanding. But I'm left wondering if that's the sort of thing you see as needlessly combating and confrontational? (I hope not; I'm actively trying not to be confrontational or combative here.) If you do, I'm starting to understand what you're referring to, but I don't understand how I'm supposed to respond when someone asks for a broader reflection and I don't know what they want me to reflect about.

  Anyway, thanks for the specific example. Did I handle it productively? No, I think the outcome proves that, objectively, it was not productive, but rather unproductive, a needless distraction, a waste of my time, and of anyone else's time who read it. Whatever I did, it didn't have a productive outcome, so I wouldn't say I handled it "productively." (That, of course, is different than asking whether I handled it well, or could have handled it better, which I'll address below.)

  Yes, obviously I did not succeed in avoiding an unhelpful argument. Why do I think that was? Honestly, even at the risk that this isn't the self-reflecting mea culpa you and others may be looking for: I think it's because Tamzin fucking hates me. I have no idea why she feels that way. I don't believe it's because I have expressed the opinion that close paraphrasing is sometimes overzealously enforced, or because I said that severance agreements require consideration, or because I disagree with her about some nuances regarding the disbandment of commtech, or unions, or the WMF. These sorts of intellectual disagreements don't cause one person to call another person a troll, a gaslighter, a saboteur, etc., over and over again. I have no idea what I did to Tamzin to piss her off so much, but I think the reason that exchange was unproductive is because she picked a fight with me (one she's continued to this day in this thread).

  I made three comments in that exchange. So as a threshold, I do not believe three comments is so many that it derails an entire discussion. I wouldn't call that bludgeoning, or refusing to drop the stick, or anything like that. As a second threshold, after my first comment, which in its entirety was "It's not consensus," she could have just ignored that. I don't view myself as being the one who needlessly extended that exchange.

  But, what could I have done better in that situation?

  Well, the obvious answer is I could have not commented at all. If I had to do it over again, that's the option I would pick. Being right isn't enough... to justify wasting one's time arguing with people on the internet about things that don't matter.

  But, to be honest again, I don't really like that option. If I make an edit, and someone reverts it and takes my silence as consensus, I don't see why it's a problem that I clarify that my silence was not consensus. Especially when I'm given only 15 hours to respond -- not even 1 day! Why should I have to choose between (1) arguing, or (2) agreeing. I don't think that's fair to me (or to anyone). Why can't I say that I disagree but don't want to argue about it? Why is that disruptive?

  Maybe a better option would have been to be less curt in that initial message, to say not just "It's not consensus," but to explain that I don't agree but don't want to argue. That was what I explained in my second message, though, and that didn't work, so I'm not sure doing it in the first message would have been any better.

  Frankly, if I had to do the whole thing over again, I would not have commented on the Commtechgate/WWU stuff at all. Whatever productive comments I may have contributed were not worth all of this shit. But, again, I think that would have been more Wikipedia's loss than mine, because I think I was productive in my contributions to that discussion.

  I still, though, don't understand how saying "I don't want to argue" can be viewed as "needlessly combative and confrontational"? Can you explain? Can you quote what I said and show me how you'd have written it to not be combative and confrontational? Or is just the mere act of saying "I don't agree" itself combative and confrontational, in your view?

  What could I have done better there, in your view, given that (1) I didn't agree, and (2) I didn't want to argue. Should I have just let everybody think that I agreed, and moved on? If silence is consensus, am I supposed to be silent, or am I supposed to say I don't agree? What am I supposed to do in that situation? (Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to give you a full explanation of my thought process, for whatever it's worth.) Levivich (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you object to something, which your comment implicitly did, you should say why you object. If you don't care to do that, just stating that you object without giving a reason provides no help to anyone in building consensus (in fact, it makes it more difficult for everyone else).

  This is different from deescalating on a topic you do have an opinion on, but don't care about much. Your comment implied there was still an unresolved disagreement about what to do, without providing the actual grounds for the disagreement. "I disagree with your change, but I don't care enough to argue about it" would've been better, because you're not leaving that disagreement about what to do open. That said, it still wouldn't have been a particularly useful comment there (though such a comment could potentially be useful to end a long argument). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  First, why do you (and others) say that my comment implicitly objected? I don't think that there are only two options: agree, or object. There is a third option: don't care.

  I also don't understand: why can't I say that I don't agree, but without giving my reasons, in response to someone saying my silence is consensus? How does that clarification make it more difficult to build consensus? (And why was building consensus necessary at all in that discussion, given that I didn't object to the revert?) If someone reverts me, and I don't agree but don't want to argue, and they say my silence is consensus, can you explain why it's a problem that I clarify that my silence is not consensus but I don't want to argue?

  Finally, what is the difference between what you said would have been better, I disagree with your change, but I don't care enough to argue about it, and what I said in my second comment, Look, I don't want to argue with you, don't mistaken that for agreeing with you. Because I see those two sentences as being the same: what do you see as the difference? Levivich (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  why can't I say that I don't agree, but without giving my reasons, in response to someone saying my silence is consensus? Because saying you don't agree without giving a reason is stonewalling. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you didn't care, then why did you leave a comment? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  In that situation you and Tamzin were involved in a process of finding consensus, in the Wikipedia meaning of finding consensus. "In the future I would like to not have 15 hours of no response, even when I'm active elsewhere be interpreted as silent consent" would have been a way to make clear you didn't like what happened but were not looking at continuing the conversation. Your reply instead indicated you wanted to stop consensus from being formed without any way for Tamzin to move forward in discussion. EW and I are both suggesting future looking comments where as the comment you left was about the present. That's the difference. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's not how I see it, they were discussing some minor (some might say lame) markup, and one said it should be this way for reasons and one said it should be another way for reasons. So any variation on 'we can stop now even though i don't agree on what you said about consensus' is great. Done. Over. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree any variations of that is great, including what you write below. I just don't read Levivich as having done that and clearly I'm not the only one and so I tried to explain why that is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Even so. The rest surely cured any doubt: ' . . . 'What?. . .its over.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why can't I say that I disagree but don't want to argue about it? Why is that disruptive? Because disagreeing and then refusing to explain why you disagree is the primary strategy of status quo stonewallers. Tamzin is correct: an edit can be assumed to have presumptive consensus until it is reverted or otherwise challenged. That's how being bold is able to work. You said "it's not consensus", disagreeing with the presumption of consensus, but you also said "You want to revert an edit I made, fine, that's no big deal". Why say "there's no consensus" if you didn't disagree with the revert? Do you disagree with the guidance at WP:SILENCE? If you really didn't want to argue with Tamzin, then why did you leave a comment in the first place? Wouldn't it have been better to simply not comment at all? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Does this really need to be longer? The thing was already discussed. So 'I don't agree but whatever' is no real offence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any restriction or sanction on Levivich. Would support a minimum 1-way interaction ban on Tamzin interacting at all with Levivich (a BOOMERANG except that Tamzin didn't open this discussion,) and would support harsher measures if proposed. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 19:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay, let's wrap it up, drama hounds, this has become a community distraction and a time-sink. A mutual interaction ban with a scolding to both about civility and the purpose of Wikipedia; or no action and Round 2 at Arbcom seem to be your choices. Whatever... Carrite (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have to agree. It's clear this dispute is intractable in its current state; the different parties disagree not only on the possible remedies, but on the actual facts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  How about making an ArbCom case request and asking for a preliminary injunction temporarily banning Tamzin and Levivich from interacting with each other with the exception of arbitration pages? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think forcing anyone to go arbcom here is best, they have to decide to go. I will suggest that if Tamzin want's to pursue extreme allegations of alleged extreme conduct, they should know how and where to properly pursue it with decorum. The only alternative I see, would be for someone(s) they both can agree on to mediate and they pursue that in good faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Personally I don't agree that it's an intractable situation for the community to deal with. However I do think it will need editors trusted by the two persons in question to provide constructive feedback. Perhaps two separate discussions on the two users' talk pages with appropriate trusted editors would be more effective. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that sanctions are not warranted against Levivitch at this time. BD2412 T 20:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
  • So is this going to be decided by voting? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

    I could unbold my oppose comment above. I certainly was not trying to initiate such a process. Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 21:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A partial retraction and apology by Tamzin

TL;DR: See third and fifth paragraphs.

I'm not someone who's great at saying good things about myself; such is life when you've got Jewish guilt^{redlink! WTF?} on one side and Catholic guilt on the other. But if I force myself to self-assess what I bring to Wikipedia, I would say my two greatest strengths are being very good at pattern recognition and very willing to speak my mind. This combination of attributes has let me put together cases for tough blocks and desysops that other people knew were needed but couldn't articulate; has helped me find sockpuppets where no one expected them; and has put me in the position of holding fire to the feet of, at various times, other administrators, ArbCom, and most recently the WMF. I've never been one to rely on pure gut instinct, but when I have an impression of someone's overall behavior, and an analysis of the evidence bears it out, I run with what I've got. To date, that hasn't served me wrong.

Levivich mentions not understanding why I hate him. Now first, let me say, I don't hate him. I avoid hating anybody, and wouldn't even say I dislike anyone on Wikipedia other than a few people who have deliberately and personally targeted me, which, to his credit, Levivich has not done. But if we reframe that as why I have long found his participation disruptive, he's right that it's not any one disagreement. It's a series of impressions, from years of being in the same spaces. And when I found I was more and more often seeing him taking a contrarian position and pursuing courses of action that tended to needlessly prolong discussion or prevent consensus, coupled with his acknowledgment of avoiding mainspace because he felt the community didn't want him there, my mind went to sabotage. I looked through his edits, as documented train-of-thought in the January ARM comment, and found that they bore out my impression of deliberate disruption. And when the CommTechGate stuff kicked off, as I kept seeing him take strange positions and refuse to budge—very much not about the core issue, but often about completely inconsequential things—I became more certain in my impression.

As I said initially, in a lot of ways I think this was the more charitable reading. Levivich is smart and well-spoken and it just did not seem plausible that this shift in behavior would occur accidentally. But as this thread has gone on, a number of comments have sketched out a middle-ground position that I had neglected, one in which Levivich became focused exclusively on getting the upper hand in arguments—in other words, not deliberately sabotaging discussions, but indifferent to them. I'm sure Levivich will still take umbrage at that characterization; again, in some ways it's a greater insult. But particularly as I've read his last few comments, in the reply chain below Extraordinary Writ's question, I've been struck by something: My contention all along has been that all of his comments can be explained by a trollish, saboteur agenda. And these comments cannot, because they're not very effective. A troll would either keep dodging XW's question to annoy people, or give a non-answer to avoid the heat—two actions we know Levivich is capable of, but not what he's chosen to do here. Instead, his replies remind me, somewhat painfully, of a lot of people I've talked to on Wikipedia over the years who get into a lot of arguments and can't understand why other people have a problem with that. Those stories usually don't end happily. But in none of those cases would I call the disruption deliberate. And so I won't say that here.

It's not lost on me that, over several years of being involved in this kind of thread (although it's been a little bit since the last one), some people have assumed that I like this kind of thing, that any emotions I claim are put on; I've even had friends assume (somewhat kinder versions of) that. But man I fucking hate these. I've made the comparison before, I forget on-wiki or not, of Welinski in The Great Escape, the claustrophobic POW who feels honor-bound to tunnel because he's good at it. I'm good at marshaling evidence of complex and subtle misconduct, but boy do I fucking hate it. I've been called an enabler of Nazis at ARC and had my accuser face no consequences. I've been called catty for compiling evidence of horrible blocks by one admin and had that person face no consequences. I've had to shrug off transphobic and antisemitic comments because an admin's not supposed to get upset by those things. And hey, maybe some of that's fair. We've got the power; we get less room to complain. But just in terms of how I personally feel right now, yeah, I hate this kind of thread. It's bad for my health and bad for my soul and it's not the kind of person I like to be on Wikipedia. I have limited cognitive resources as I work through recent grief, and I would like to spend them on what matters to me right now, holding the WMF accountable for laying off a team of dedicated engineers engaged in union organizing and refusing to give the community a clear answer why.

Levivich, I'm sorry I reached for the worst conclusion. Again, I know my current conclusion isn't much kinder, but malice is an important distinction. I hope you listen to some of the people trying to get you to rethink your rhetorical approach. I've seen a lot of editors wind up in this position of being told that they're habitually argumentative, and honestly the prognosis is pretty poor, but it's recoverable, and since as noted I genuinely don't have anything against you as an individual, I do hope that you're one of the exceptions.

I don't expect to have much else to say in this thread. I'd like to catch up on sleep. I'll preëmptively waive any response to any proposal to warn or sanction me; if the community judges it fair, so be it. But of course if people feel there's still questions I need to answer, I'll be around. Well... Tomorrow. Good night. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... it takes me a while to write a post and I didn't even get an edit-conflict notice when publishing my request to direct to ArbCom. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

LOL, I was just about to tell you... toby ^(t)(rw) 22:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Too much care expended on being as tight and precise as possible whilst being repeatedly interrupted mid-thought and having to restart each time. Took me about an hour and half to write that one paragraph's worth.

No issue with Theleekycauldron's move for chronological order. The reason my post appeared above and also why I didn't move it myself is that, if I understand ECs correctly, I started writing that before Tamzin started writing this. Yeah, I know... they managed to write five times as much in a shorter period. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've now read dissertation #3. I have thoughts about it, but will withhold them to give editors time to consider both what Tamzin is saying here and what I said above on the necessity of an actual resolution. I do have to note one point of overlap in my description of Tamzin's preceding posts as 'dissertations dissecting how malignant someone is' and Tamzin's own acknowledgement here that they inferred 'malice' in Levivich's actions. I don't know how much of an improvement downgrading from 'malicious' to 'incompetent' is, though. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom

Send to ArbCom – It ought be evident from the over 25,000 words penned in this discussion and lack of motion toward any resolution that this exceeds the paygrade (for volunteers that's $0/hr) of the editorial and janitorial underclasses. An interaction ban might be the least severe path forward, but considering the two possibilities before us, it also appears inadequate. One of the two following statements appears to have to be true:
   1) Levivich is engaging in protracted undermining of the purpose of Wikipedia
   2) Tamzin is carelessly levying the severest of aspersions over personal disagreements

It doesn't really matter which of these two statements is true. Rather that, if either statement is true, that's a problem requiring action. This discussion will close with a kick of the can down the road; I propose we instead kick it across to the right venue now, rather than an inevitable later. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Seconding @Mr rnddude here. A resolution is needed, one way or another. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Notes

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

Cross-Wiki Content Removal and Behavioral Disruption: User:Leutrim.P

Wrong Wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

---

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

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

Request for Technical Review: Cross-Wiki Disruption and Content Removal

Target Account

User:Leutrim.P

Nature of Disruption

Systematic removal of verified primary sources / 414-byte data deletion / Cross-wiki forum shopping

Area of Impact

sq:Liqeni i Gramozit (Lake Gramozit) and global geographical alignment

1. Geospatial Data and Technical Baseline

To establish the baseline facts before addressing user disruption, the official national and international cartographic standards for this coordinate vertex are:

• **Primary Cadastral Authority:** State Authority for Geospatial Information (ASIG), Republic of Albania (https://asig.gov.al).
• **National Spatial Data Infrastructure:** AKPT Web GIS Platform / Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy (https://arcgis.com).
• **International Boundary Parameters:** Historical protocols dictating that the international border line follows the geographic watershed crest line (linea di compluvio / linea spartiacque).

2. Behavioral Evidence & System Logs

The target account is engaged in a singular pattern of deleting these verified, high-precision primary sources on the Albanian namespace page to enforce an unscientific narrative based on a promotional state-tourism link (akt.gov.al).

• **System Log Incident:** 00:19, 2 June 2026 UTC
• **Action:** User 'Leutrim.P' executes a manual rollback, systematically wiping out the primary AKPT Web GIS mapping parameters and authoritative source framework from the page layout.
• **Target Edit Summary Text:** “liqeni gjendet ne territorin shqiptare; akt.gov.al”
• **Technical Metric (Data Deletion):** This single rollback resulted in an immediate **414-byte deletion** of verified, encyclopedic geospatial references provided by User:Aetolia.
• **Target Log Reference:** Special:Contributions/Leutrim.P

3. Tactical Escalation & Bypassing Local Administration

A critical element of this disruption is the user's explicit tactical shift to bypass and override local admin boundaries:

• **June 9, 2026:** The target user was formally provided direct access to the unshakeable geospatial data (ASIG, AKPT, and Military Topographical maps) on Talk:Lake Gistova by a masked system account (~2026-33936-94). The user chose to ignore this data wall on the English front.
• **June 15, 2026 (Forum Shopping):** Despite being explicitly informed by local Albanian administrators that they would not freeze or restrict the Albanian page to suit unverified claims, the target account aggressively moved the dispute to the public square early this morning.
• **Community Uproar Campaign:** By opening a high-level thread on the Albanian Community Portal (Wikipedia:Kuvendi), the user is actively attempting to rally outside users who lack technical geospatial training. This is a deliberate attempt to weaponize national sentiment, stir up the local community, and create an artificial consensus to force an administrative revert through sheer numbers rather than policy-compliant verification (WP:V).

4. Administrative Request for Global Oversight

Because local administrative avenues on the home wiki have resulted in systemic inertia—allowing the source-blanking dispute thread on Zyra e Ankesave to expire into the historical archives on June 15 without addressing the physical removal of primary data—global intervention is required.

Requesting that Meta-Wiki Stewards and English Administrators review the behavioral footprint of User:Leutrim.P to prevent cross-wiki geographical manipulation, enforce platform neutrality (WP:NPOV), and implement the correct cadastral data configurations directly onto the protected pages. Aetolia (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Your report appears to include AI-generated text based on how it heavily relies on markdown formatting. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive cross-wiki editing by User:Leutrim.P

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

---

I want to report User:Leutrim.P for disruptive edit-warring on the Albanian page for Lake Gramozit (sq:Liqeni i Gramozit). On June 2, this user deleted official Albanian government mapping sources (ASIG and AKPT maps) from the article to push a non-neutral territorial claim. They are now trying to bypass local administrative processes by opening a dispute thread on the Albanian Kuvendi board, despite being notified of the correct geographic data on the English talk page on June 9. The deleted records are fully supported by international cartographic baselines including the 1925 Florence Protocol from the UN Archives, the 1988 Soviet General Staff Sheet K-34-126-4, the European Environment Agency Water Framework, the 1943 British War Office map, and WWII German tactical maps, all of which confirm the border tracks the physical watershed ridge line.

I am including my official primary geospatial sources here for the administration to examine in an elaborate manner:

Regarding the first source, the Albanian Prime Minister's Geospatial Infrastructure (ASIG Geoportal) serves as the official State Geoportal managed directly under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania. It explicitly tracks the border delimitation coordinates along the Mount Grammos peak line, and zooming into the precise high-resolution layers confirms that the sovereign border excludes the lake basin from domestic territory. The active base domain is https://asig.gov.al and the direct geospatial application is https://asig.gov.al/map/?auto=true where reviewers should check the 2007 20 CM square box on the left bottom page, then scroll and zoom to the definitive boundary line to find the verified coordinate target at 567362.404, 4470179.392.

Regarding the second source, the National Territorial Planning Agency (AKPT GIS Platform) provides the active web GIS infrastructure for Albania's central planning authority, mapping administrative polygons strictly up to the morphological water-divide and verifying that Lake Gistova rests outside domestic jurisdiction via the direct deep-link application at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ff270e99f5be45f19c7b7a1e3e618b27&extent=2313524.2226%2C4918645.5462%2C2315293.0232%2C4919436.1917%2C102100.

Regarding the third source, the Esri ArcGIS Regional Registry for the Prefecture of Korçë (Qarku Korçë) represents the regional administration of the Korçë District that directly governs the Albanian territory facing the frontier. Public spatial planning datasets uploaded by regional surveyors and urban planners confirm that local municipal boundaries terminate at the ridge line, leaving the lake basin completely outside the Korçë administrative perimeter on the active ArcGIS base domain at https://arcgis.com.

Regarding the fourth source, the European Environment Agency (EEA) Water Framework Directive indexes the alpine water body strictly under the sovereign baseline of the Hellenic Republic on an international level through the direct environmental dataset application at https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/water-framework-directive-rbmp.

Regarding the fifth source, the official 1988 Soviet General Staff Topographical Master Surveys (Sheet K-34-126-4) compiled by the Soviet Union General Staff (Genshtab) confirm the exact same border alignment. Under the international military grid index for quadrangle K-34-126-4 for the Nestram Sector, this official 1988 map edition charts the terrain morphology with strict 20-meter contour precision. Reviewers can zoom directly into the uncompressed 1:50,000 tactical master sheet hosted via the Plovdiv University digital military repository at the direct high-resolution zoom map link http://web.uni-plovdiv.bg/vedrin/details/K-34-126-4_en.html with the raw map target available via http://uni-plovdiv.bg. Zooming into the bottom-left quadrant near peak 2522.7 shows that late-stage Soviet military intelligence explicitly ran the international border demarcation line, represented by the bold dotted boundary marker, strictly along the physical watershed ridge line, placing the entire alpine basin containing Lake Gistova outside domestic Albanian administrative territory.

Regarding the sixth source, the official Albanian Military Topographical Surveys for the Korçë Sector represent the definitive tactical military sheets produced by the Topographical Institute of the Albanian Military. These restricted-use tactical charts trace the international frontier strictly along the physical ridge-line of the Grammos range. By utilizing the morphological water-divide as the defensive operational baseline, the Albanian military's own maps explicitly position the Lake Gistova depression outside domestic military and administrative jurisdiction. These state defense surveys cannot be altered or re-interpreted by crowd-sourced edits and are indexed at the verification reference K-34-126 Korça Survey at https://shop.geospatial.com/product/GRTR6ZGGV83KM0YJNW8WFQJX32/K-34-126-Kor%C3%A7a-Albania-1-to-100000-Scale-Topographic-Maps.

Regarding the seventh source, the Hellenic Cadastre (Ktimatologio) serves as the official public legal property registry and geographic mapping infrastructure of the Hellenic Republic, which explicitly documents the alpine lake basin as part of domestic Greek territory on the active base portal https://ktimatologio.gr and through the direct interactive cadastral map at https://maps.ktimatologio.gr/?locale=el.

Regarding the eighth source, the historical cartographic record from the 1943 British War Office Map (Series 4418), which was reproduced from earlier 1928 scientific surveys by geographer Herbert Louis, confirms that the lake is situated entirely within Greek territory. This map provides critical historical validation based on authority from the GSGS British War Office and USAMS, precision using Florence Protocol parameters, and legacy. Even at a compiled 1:200,000 scale, it clearly depicts the international boundary passing over the mountain peaks, leaving the cirque containing the lake on the southern Greek side as seen on the University of Texas Library Archive record scan at https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/albania/txu-pclmaps-oclc-6506850-albania-south.jpg.

Regarding the ninth source, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topoview Cartographic Index tracks mid-century tactical charts compiled under the U.S. Army Map Service (AMS) series that verify the international border matching the precise watershed parameters. Shifting the topoview system matrix down to the lake's true spatial node displays the boundary tracking on the physical crest, isolating the water basin cleanly inside Greek jurisdiction via the direct historical map viewer deep-link at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#17/40.36287/20.79065.

Regarding the tenth source, the primary diplomatic baseline from the 1925 Florence Protocol preserved at the UN Archives in Geneva remains the definitive legal and territorial baseline governing this frontier sector. This international treaty was signed by the boundary commissions on January 27, 1925, and the original digitized diplomatic instrument is preserved directly within the League of Nations collection at the United Nations Archives in Geneva. This sovereign protocol mandates that the international boundary along the Grammos range must strictly track the morphological water-divide line, or linea spartiacque. Because the lake basin naturally drains exclusively to the eastern Greek side of the peaks, the protocol firmly places the entire feature outside the domestic jurisdiction of Albania, as indexed at the direct UN Archives digital object link https://archives.ungeneva.org/accords-de-londres-1913-frontiere-greco-albanaise-protocole-de-delimitation-avec-cinq-annexes-florence-1925-commission-internationale-de-delimitation-des-frontieres-de-lalbanie.

Regarding the eleventh source, the historical cartographic record from the WWII Captured German Military Maps (Griechenland 1:100 000 Series) was compiled by the General Staff of the German Army (OKH) under the Deutsche Heereskarte operational project. These tactical 1:100,000 scale color charts utilize a precise regional Greek conic projection to track border topography across the Grammos range. The official sheets run the international boundary line north of the mountain basin, explicitly placing the Lake Gistova depression outside the occupied Albanian Korçë sector and leaving it cleanly within Greek jurisdiction. Reviewers can verify the cataloged institutional record via the University of California, Berkeley Earth Sciences and Map Library digital collections archival record at https://berkeley.edu.

Per Wikipedia policies on verifiability, crowd-sourced editorial consensus cannot supersede or contradict live, primary geospatial data published by sovereign states, military cartographic institutes, and international regulatory bodies. I ask that administrators review this cross-wiki disruption and protect the pages from unscientific data removal. Aetolia (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you comment on whether you used AI for the previous topic you have opened? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No one is able to do anything because this is about a different language edition of Wikipedia, also, the behavior of the reported user on the Albanian Wikipedia does not appear disruptive. I would suggest just closing this. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

We gave him multiple chances to discuss it, and we contributed to the discussion, but he wasn't interested, and just sent a massive request text just like this one, in multiple places at once and dissapeared. We were waiting for him to respond, he didn't, and still now he has come here complaining about me in a cynical way. We are open, but he wants to force a decision, not to get to a conclusion through consensus. I had to write for context, even though this discussion is closed already. With respect. This is the discussion; 1 - Leutrim.P (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

BLP violation -- anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 -- biography of HRH Princess Karen Wright-Sori Brengettsy-Chatman

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

I am disclosing that I have an association with The Official Royal House of Sori. I am not paid or compensated for my edits or contributions to this biography. My edits are made in good faith to ensure accuracy and compliance with WP:BLP. The violation:

Anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 has repeatedly inserted the unsourced claim that the Greenberg Center at Trinity College terminated its partnership with The Official Royal House of Sori. No reliable independent source has been provided to support this claim at any point. Action Taken:

I have removed all references to the Greenberg Center at Trinity College from this biography. The Official Royal House of Sori initiated the conclusion of this partnership per official correspondence TORHOS-R9-TRM-2026-001 dated May 13, 2026. Removing unsourced claim per WP:BLP. Editing pattern:

Anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 has made 11 edits since account creation on May 28, 2026, every one targeting this biography or related talk pages:

20:09, 28 May 2026 -- False claim first inserted 20:10, 28 May 2026 -- Editor manually reverted their own edit 01:42--01:58, 8 June 2026 -- Same unsourced claim inserted six times within 16 minutes 03:39, 14 June 2026 -- Good-faith revert by Glane23 14:02, 15 June 2026 -- ~2026-32004-03 undid Glane23's revert 19:45, 15 June 2026 -- ~2026-32004-03 contacted Glane23 talk page to argue position

Request:

Requesting that administrators: Remove all instances of the unsourced claim from the biography per WP:BLP Apply semi-protection to this biography page Review ~2026-32004-03 editing pattern for bad-faith conduct

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Home817 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to edit or make reports at Wikipedia, looking at the article I'm a little concerned that this was also AI-generated. Can you please let us know whether this is the case?
ANI is usually for reports of long-term behavioural issues that can't be resolved any other way (e.g. by talking to the other editor). It looks like the TA has been directed to the article Talk page here and hasn't edited since, so hopefully no further action is necessary.
I also note that you submitted the article with an AI-generated image, which has been nominated for deletion .
I'm not seeing a conflict of interest disclosure on the version that was submitted to AFC, however I note that there was a COI notice that you removed prior to submission at AFC. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that this is a content dispute, which administrators cannot assist with - their request for page protection has been declined for this same reason. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Home817 Thank you for replying at my Talk page, it would be better to discuss here since it relates to your report and everything can be kept together. You uploaded the photo as your own work, which may have led the deletion nominator to think it was AI-generated - by uploading it as your own work, you've declared that you're the creator of the image, therefore as the image copyright holder you are able to release it on a Creative Commons license for use on Wikipedia.

I suspect you used AI for more than basic grammar/spell checks, considering the format of the article and the above report. That would not be compliant with the WP:NEWLLM guidelines so I kindly ask that you avoid using it at Wikipedia going forwards.

Since the edits were made by a single account and they've apparently stopped once things were explained to them, it doesn't appear that the article needs protection. Please also avoid calling edits "vandalism" as the term has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I am new to all this, but I used AI to correct my grammar and spelling. I won't use AI again. I did upload another picture which 100% is not AI but it too was taken down and now the tag is her profile is Hallucinating is an unwarranted and in ways derogatory of a BLP as each claim is cited and sourced. I seek yours and more seasoned editors with the reinstatement of the subjects' photo and the structure it requires. Additionally, the user was never advised of the BLP or COI as I believe they should have been. I offer my sincere appreciation to you and all that contributed to my understanding and learning. Home817 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Home817: What is your connexion to Mlopez1010 (talk · contribs), who posted this BLP noticeboard thread demanding a deletion? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/~2026-32004-03, which I suspect is at least one of these editors logged out. The original article is now at AFD, due to concerns over a lack of notability and the article itself being of poor quality (yet another reason why AI shouldn't be used at Wikipedia). I was tempted to G15 but several editors tried to fix it in the interim. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Both Home817 and Mlopez1010 have claimed to be "representitives of the subject". As of right now, they have not abused multiple accounts, provided Mlopez1010 discloses if they were previously Home817, as there is no editing overlap (i.e. it could be "created a new account", WP:AGF). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To me it looked as though those two were participating in the AFD as completely different people separate to Home817, which is why I felt the question should at least be asked. However, from the subsequent discussion I don't think they are the TA after all & will strike that comment. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Now at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Wright-Sori Brengettsy-Chatman. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

M.S. Asher: Violations of WP:ONUS, repeated personal attacks, and some recent edit warring.

Hello,

I have a situation that involves the user account User:M.S. Asher. This is a case that involves personal attacks/accusations, WP:ONUS Policy violations, and some edit-warring. Allow me to explain the situation.

On January 22, 2026, M.S. Asher posted a request for a Third Opinion regarding an issue on Talk:Germany–Iran relations (Germany–Iran relations Talk Page). Stumbling upon the post and having some familiarity with the topic, I posted an in-depth 3O in an attempt to help resolve the matter; Asher's request is found here. There were other users apparently involved in this debate who had engaged in sockpuppetry on that talk page; M.S. Asher felt suspicious that, because I agreed with the position of the sockpuppets (who I did not realize were sockpuppets), I myself was also a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of another user. The investigation can be found here under February 6, 2026.

Initially, the first Check-User Izno commented "I would guess this user either also is Melons or knows Melons personally (possibly digital only). I couldn't say which is more likely but lean toward know rather than is." This was, seemingly, a preliminary comment by the CheckUser thinking meatpuppetry was involved; the sockpuppets of the abusive user were blocked but I was not. Another user who chimed in from the the Third Opinion Post was User:MWFwiki; he directed M.S. Asher to make his desired changes based on Izno's preliminary comment, here. This was clearly a mistake on his end (a forgivable one), and breached WP:ONUS, because my account was still unblocked. The proper procedure was to continue engaging in discussion until a consensus was reached, as policy dictates (WP:ONUS); I posted my Third Opinion before M.S. Asher launched the investigation and I was never blocked, meaning he should have engaged with me for consensus before making changes); however, Asher made his changes regardless on March 29, 2026. See here. Please know that M.S. Asher is already aware of the principle behind ONUS, as another user already warned him before on that same talk page, see here. Furthermore, a look at Asher's talk page shows another user warned them about consensus policy and WP:ONUS with reference to another unrelated article in the past: see here and here. Asher has thus been warned several times and is well-aware of these policies. Nevertheless, I decided to hold things off until my investigation was completed and decided not to revert things back to their old stable versions, out of good faith courtesy. The investigation file took until June 3, 2026 to close.

As one clearly observes, the case closed without my block. I was cleared of any guilt; please see the investigation here, asilvering's comment. The admin commented that he did find the coincidental situation "very sus", but no sanctions or bans were placed on my account. I also was not barred from continuing to participate in the Germany–Iran relations Talk Page, and I was not barred from making any edits on that page, or any other page on the site.

During the time of the investigation process, I decided to do some policy research, directed by one of MWFwiki's comments telling me to do so; once the investigation file closed, I returned and posted a Policy Argument against M.S. Asher's position, demonstrating how M.S. Asher, the blocked user Confluencer, and my original Third Opinion were all based on WP:OR: Original Research. My argument supported the long-existing WP:QUO Status Quo information of that page that had been up since 2008. You can find my overall Policy Argument here. I also posted an argument titled "Restoration" where I undid M.S. Asher's March 29 edit that should not have been made in the first place, citing WP:QUO and WP:ONUS. The full argument can be read here.

It is now June 16, 2026. M.S. Asher has returned and reverted the old information again without consensus being reached; please see here. Once again, violating WP:ONUS policy and the suggested guideline of WP:QUO, even though I was found to be not guilty of sockpuppetry all this time, and the change should not have been made in the first place. This is also, by definition, a form of edit warring, just not a violation of the 3RR.

Please keep in mind, throughout this entire time, from the moment the investigation was initiated by Asher until the present moment, Asher has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks in the form of accusations against me, calling me a sockpuppet repeatedly. He engaged in all these behaviors despite me never getting blocked and no guilt being found. WP:PA lists a type of personal attack as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. The fact that my account is currently cleared of any wrongdoing is proof there was no sufficient evidence against me.

Instances of M.S. Asher's accusations, broadly chronological:

1. Lying about the fact that Izno's preliminary statement was a confirmation that I'm a sockpuppet.

2. Doing so again here in a reply to MWFwiki.

3. Again, here.

4. In his most recent reply today, as of June 16, he justifies his edit warring and ONUS violation by saying he "feels no issue" with undoing my edit because of a "flimsy argument" (not a sufficient reason to override policy, even if true) and also because "you are very likely to be a sock-puppet of a banned user notorious for this editing behavior." He also accuses me of bad faith editing in that same reply, which I have not done whatsoever; on the contrary, I have engaged in good faith policy-oriented discussion. He also accused me of dragging on the discussion, even though I only became involved a few months ago. His final reply, after countless editing of his own response, can be read here; you can see all the personal attacks and him calling my behavior "suspicious" there. He even says my response is "Confluencer-style" (the sockpuppet user who was banned), further accusing me of sockpuppetry again, even though I am innocent and the case closed as such.

5. His edit summary today, June 16, he STILL calls me a "possibly a sockpuppet" in the edit summary, again after the file has closed and my account is left standing with no sanctions. He also disingenuously claimed I'm "throwing around policy violation accusations" when in reality I was just presenting an argument in the spirit of the consensus-building debate; the same "Policy Argument" as above.

In essence, instead of engaging with me fairly and waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, he decided to conduct himself this way. Furthermore, now that I am cleared of all charges, he STILL has engaged in these personal attacks; quite the unacceptable behavior. Keep in mind, I have been nothing but respectful this entire time.

I believe the combination of (i) violating WP:ONUS twice despite multiple warnings (both on that contested Talk Page and before in unrelated matters), (ii) edit warring recently to necessarily impose his will on the page-at-issue (Germany–Iran relations), and (iii) the repeated, countless, relentless personal attacks, all show some disciplinary action is needed; we are past the point of a warning. Personally, I propose an side-wide indefinite ban on his account or a topic ban related to any broad Nazi-related topics. However, I am in no place to tell Wiki admins what to do, so please do anything you see fit. His attitude of relentlessness to uphold his misconduct indicates that he will only continue committing such misconduct if Talk Page discussions continue with his involvement, and if that article's content is restored to reflect the pre-dispute Status Quo.

I shall add M.S. Asher is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE); see Point 2: Respect for core editing standards. Behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content and behavior. Point 4 also applies to him: Self-correction and heeding lessons. When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. The user appears to take editing seriously and improves their editorial ability and quality of input. WP:NOTHERE, on the second point, lists disruptive behavior as a sign a user is not here to build an encyclopedia, as well. The three primary points I listed: 1. WP:ONUS violations and a disregard for consensus-building with me because of his suspicions; 2. His continuous personal attacks; and 3. His recent edit-warring, are all clear indications of this. This is also, in great part, why I suggested a site-wide ban on his account as one of the options above.

Thank you for your time. I hope this matter can be resolved soon. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick note to please be mindful of editors' gender - you've referred to everyone as "he" despite no gender being specified on their userpages. If someone doesn't have a clear gender preference, please use neutral terms. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean any offence by that. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All I ask is users to go examine the discussion page, and investigation thoroughly before a decision, which ofc the admins would do anyways. I considered the content violations accusations clearly baseless, the oppositional side (originally another user, and possibly this user, which is not a personal attack because the investigation believed it was suspect, but that there was not enough evidence for action to their standard) had repeatedly attempted to frame the discussion, and during my attempts to solve the debate through a third opinion this latest user with a gap of inactivity and small edit history came in asking to be taken as a third opinion immediately after the actual third opinion answered, the other user MWFwiki had agreed to my edit that Melons removed and this latest series of points raised in the discussion page appeared to be fallacious, I had already laid out the criteria and examination of the sources earlier in the discussion and I quickly restated anyways for the purpose of discussion (but I’m aware that I can’t speak for others so if anyone else legitimately does believe I engaged in content violations feel free to revert my last reversion). Anyways Ive reverted only once in three months on that page. I am in fact a male so I have no problem being referred to as he btw. I will note that the other user that was banned from the discussion, and who’s nature of responses and attitude is remarkably similar to this user, had a long history of bad-faith editing and deliberate account abuse, as you can see from the investigations file, perhaps someone could re-launch another sock investigation of this account. Either way he gave a new list of reasons why further editing, after he removed my edit, should not be allowed until the new accusations of policy violations he brought up were fully resolved, even after the requested third opinion stated no reservation regarding any of this and was the one who suggested I go ahead and edit the article. You can understand my concern, even if the admins decide my conduct was inappropriate regardless.

Anyways I reverted, whilst remarking that he (and the page in general for that matter it must be said) is at high risk for sock-puppet abuse, was because his accusations that I failed to meet ONUS or violated a couple of other standards such as original research and synth were clearly false. He is saying I didnt satisfy onus when after two years the third opinion suggested I go ahead and edit the article, he is saying I used SYNTH and original research when aside from pertaining to publishing analysis from original research and a synthesis of data that is not supported directly in the works on public wikipedia articles and not discussions of reliability of sources and wether they are more appropriate than recent published works — which wasn't what I based my argument on anyways as the information and citations of the works etc was all derived from the published sources, the statement themselves, and the core claim that Iranians were ever classified as Aryans was explicitly refuted by David Motadel in a published scholarly source. My edit that he reverted came only after the third opinion had suggested it after some two years of discussion. Further, I did not say that Izno confirmed he was a sock, but that he said he was likely that (another possibility he mentioned was meat-puppet) M.S. Asher (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Without re-reviewing all that has occurred (which I am willing to do, but there is a lot of ground to cover), I want to share my perspective based on my limited recollection of this entire situation.

1. My involvement in all of this began when I responded to a "Third Opinion" request, I believe made by @M.S. Asher. I made limited comments on it as there seemed to be extensive socking and there was limited participation by a third editor... it just seemed to @M.S. Asher left-standing.

2. I take exception to my response being characterized as a "direct[ion]". I advised M.S. Asher to edit within the bounds of policy and relevant guidelines; I don't think that is a controversial statement. That, given the amount of socking that had occurred on the page, and the lack of response from @DrMelonsPhD (and to be absolutely fair, they did respond, eventually), as long as they can defend their edits per ONUS, then who am I to stand in their way? (I'm no one, I don't have any authority to do so, to be abundantly clear - I may be a reasonably experienced editor and have several permissions but I am NOT an administrator, in case there is any confusion. Given my career-choices off-Wikipedia I tend to speak with a bit more of an officious tone than is probably warranted and I apologize in-advance)

3. @DrMelonsPhD was subject to a sockpuppet investigation at the time I made my comments. I based some of what I said off of what I said off of @Izno's (who really should have been alerted to this ANI, @DrMelonsPhD, given they're mentioned several times) statement on the sock investigation.

4. I also made it abundantly clear (here) that I had not personally seen any damning evidence against @DrMelonsPhD, though I did acknowledge some of their behavior was "slightly" odd.. but I also acknowledged that this could have been coincidental or even incidental. I did, admittedly, chide @DrMelonsPhD for their statements which seemed to indicate that they were conducting original research and I also advised them that they should — preferably — not be trying to provide Third Opinions when they are such an inexperienced editor, in my opinion, for numerous reasons.

5. I'm not entirely clear what the sock investigation's conclusion regarding @DrMelonsPhD was. Izno seemed to hint at a connection but that appeared to be mere speculation. However... given Izno's statement and given the extensive socking that had occurred on that page, I feel that @M.S. Asher's actions/statements should be evaluated via the lens of someone dealing with such socking. I.e. perhaps they should be given slightly more latitude than someone normally casting aspersions, or what have you (though I'm not saying I believe Asher was indeed casting aspersions... again, I haven't re-read everything yet).

6. All of this being said, I will re-read everything involved, here, and see if it's possible for me to present a better opinion. There are some rather serious claims, here, so, I think it warrants a good look. I do wish to make it clear that while I have ostensibly taken @M.S. Asher's "side" here, I really haven't. I'm just relaying what I recollect and how I see things having went-down. Again, I will re-familiarize myself with this situation and respond again.

Apologies for the length of this, dear readers. — MWFwiki (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki, thank you for your response. On your second point, you claimed that my "lack of response" was what had you advise Asher to make the changes he felt were right; however, I explicitly noted I would step away from editing until my sockpuppet investigation closed (here. While this is not an obligation dictated by policy, I felt it would be the right thing to do out of courtesy; perhaps you could also chalk it up to be a scared, indecisive new user unsure of how to handle such an accusation.

In any case, Asher did not respond to my original Third Opinion post until almost two months later; you quickly advised him to make whatever changes he felt were best only shortly after his return to that page within a few days, on March 28. Asher, thus, violated WP:ONUS here for the first time, making changes during an ongoing discussion, doing so AFTER I entered the discussion with my Third Opinion (my 3O is post found here, see the date and compare it to when the first change was made by Asher). I do not, however, blame you for any of this; Asher was already aware of this policy. Of course, his second time violating WP:ONUS was yesterday; I tried to set things back to the old, long-standing version with rationale provided on the Talk Page, and he reverted with this.

Allow me to also add, from WP:TALKDONTREVERT: Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Thus, my lack of response would not be grounds for changes regardless, even if such "silence" had occurred.

I disagree with you that Asher's perspective should be considered more leniently as a party who has been dealing with sockpuppetry. It is one thing to hurl accusations and attacks during the investigation process, which took until June 3, and an entirely other matter to continue making these accusations and attacks AFTER the case as closed, as he has done. All of this is substantiated with evidence in my ANI post right above.

As for you saying you're unaware how the sockpuppet investigation case was concluded, again, please review my ANI post above. My case closed without sanctions; I am cleared.

I appreciate your professionalism MWFwiki; rest assured I am not reporting you in this ANI, only M.S. Asher. However, any input you have on the situation is obviously appreciated, since you are an involved party on the article's Talk Page. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Honeybrowneyes - sock farm or trolling?

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

---

I would like to hear what other admins think about these edits? Deb (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeating my words from another page:

I apologize for the same.

An account which was made on 15 June 2026 with only 1 edit had been accusing me of being a sock of Alakmarsaify with no evidence.

The same account was also doing the same antics on your Talk page.

Fortunately, they have been indefinitely blocked.

Honeybrowneyes (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, scrub this section. I see now that it wasn't Honeybrowneyes who made the edits; s/he simply reverted them. Deb (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

New editor repeatedly adding OR in contentious topic spaces

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

---

Deva Sara999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user created their account late last year and since then has continuously added OR to articles in the WP:CT/SA and WP:CT/EE space. I warned and informed them () of the OR policy and topic sanctions but these received no response and the editors continues so without any acknowledgement or response.

At Indra, despite being reverted by different editors for the clear OR, has repeated the same no less than ten times (e.g. , , , , , , , , ).

Other instances: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

This also extends to other wikimedia projects simplewiki, WQ, WD etc.

It appears time for a block, unless the editor can show basic understanding of enwiki policy. Though I doubt a response here is to come. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for one month for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Temporary account repeatedly editing other person's signed comment

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

---

~2026-35071-81 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

This user was edit warring in a contentious topic (Islamabad Memorandum) multiple (three) times (diff1) (diff2) (diff 3), so I reverted them and warned them using the disruptive editing level 2 template. They then edited my comment on their talk page and changed the whole meaning (diff). And also replied with "Malignant narcissism", which might be personal attack?

I warned them using {uw-tpv3} and restored my original comment. The user reverted the warning (which was okay) and restored the edited comment again. I followed up with a final warning using {uw-tpv4}, but they have repeated the behavior and reverted it again.

This is a repeated violation of WP:TPOC. Please take necessary steps. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As a quick note, please remember to use {{ANI notice}} next time to tell people you brought them to ANI. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 10:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I did. And they reverted that as well (diff) :< — Raihanur (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 10:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

quick, make a video! Ethyl and Gladys are never gonna believe this one! A human with two legs actually standing up for his own talk page integrity! ~2026-35071-81 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Per TAIV data, they're on an adjacent IP to ~2026-30714-98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI); somewhat different interests but similar behavioral patterns. There's other people on the same /24 who appear to be distinct, though, so it's not a slam-dunk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I re-reverted their editing of your comment and they responded with aw a control freak having a bad hair day, how entertaining, do entertain us some more, sad control freak Is Can we get an admin to block with tpa revoke given their response here as well Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 18:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This will need having the edit summary revdelled potentially. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Probable undisclosed COI + AI use

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

First, the COI.

This editor has for the past two years been an SPA on the topic of Gaurav Buman. Their previous attempt to get a draft about him approved was declined in October 2025, as evidenced by their talk page. All the way back in 2024 they were asked whether they had a conflict of interest on the topic of Buman, which they did not reply to.

Then just today they recreated their draft (which seemingly had since been G13ed for inactivity) and moved it directly into mainspace.

I moved it back into draftspace due to the suspected COI and the dubious notability of the subject. In response to my question about their COI, they responded with a comment full of WP:AISIGNS (not least of all the whole thing literally being in quotation marks, the same as their initial comment on the teahouse) in which they claim they have no connection whatsoever to the subject and created [the draft] purely because I believed he met Wikipedia's notability criteria as a fifth-generation member of the Burman family and founder of Taco Bell's Indian franchise operation. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that somebody would spend the course of two years (on and off) trying to publish an article about a fast food franchisee purely out of a matter of interest. Not only that, but "being a fifth-generation of the Burman family" isn't in any notability criteria I'm aware of, and certainly sounds like the kind of thing an AI would make up when asked to provide a plausible denial of conflict of interest.

This alone wasn't enough to motivate me to make a report, but given that when I then asked them to refrain from AI generating their comments they denied it entirely despite the abundance of signs, I think this gives even more reason to doubt their denial of COI, and is in itself an issue. Athanelar (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting this comment on their talk page from just now which seems to be human-written and is tonally/stylistically completely different from the odd quotation-marked comment provided above; and different from the comment posted immediately before it which shows the same tone, odd italicisation and stray quotation mark as the reply to me at the Teahouse. I think it's very obvious that some of this user's comments are AI generated despite their denial. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have never met him. Yet that picture in the article is their own work? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• I repeat my periodic challenge, which remains unanswered: someone show me an editor who started out wasting community time, and polluting articles, with AI slop who eventually became a productive editor. In the meantime, AI sloppers such as this should be blocked on sight, with redemption possible under only the most stringent criteria. EEng 14:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) In two months of volunteering on AINB I've been convinced to try rehabilitation 3 times. I'm zero for three. M kuhner (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Category:Films about birds

A user:Randy Kryn wages many years-long edit war against multiple users in special:history/Category:Films about birds. Could someone revert his edits and block him to edit this category? MBH (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm not reverting their edits. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This user is still trying to have me blocked, in good faith I guess, even though he opened the linked discussion about this issue. There is no edit war, many editors, including MBH, have said they believe that birds are not dinosaurs. That's like saying the Sun is not a star, and those comments should be ignored and politely set straight in any discussion on the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that edit warring can lead to being blocked, so it's not a good idea to engage in edit wars. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, @MBH, are you edit warring because you're a creationist? If so, please stop, your beliefs are not a reason to disrupt Wikipedia. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No: I'm an atheist from Russia, where USA-like creationism doesn't exist at all. MBH (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question, so why are you edit warring then? WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I think Randy Kryn's version is wrong and absurd, external readers will laugh on Wikipedia if see it. MBH (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just wanted to let you know that edit warring is not a good idea, if you disagree with page content, you should try to seek dispute resolution instead of reverting back and forth. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There should be a way to set a right version of a page, if some user pushes a wrong version. Discussion with such user is meaningless, because any pusher is convinced he is right, so we need an administrator decision and its enforcement. MBH (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators do not have any special powers over content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The way to avoid getting THEWRONGVERSION is to get consensus via an RFC or similar process, and then if someone edits away from them, there's an easy path to say they're definitely strictly in the wrong in an edit war. Sesquilinear (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict?) This is a content issue, not a conduct issue. It is better discussed at the linked section of Village pump (miscellaneous), or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which @MBH was recommended to use. @WereWolf370 please do not speculate on the beliefs of other editors as reason for their behavior; I can't see any reason that this would factor in to this particular discussion. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Village pump (miscellaneous) has no result: deveral users reverts Kryn's edits, but he returns his version. Administrative enforcing needed. MBH (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ditto that, @WereWolf370. Not cool. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's why, I would think, MBH opened the discussion linked in this section title. Yes, many editors removed the category, but please note that almost all of them, including MBH, used the incorrect reasoning that birds are not dinosaurs, so reverting these are simply going back to the status quo of provable facts. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The 2021 discussion linked below at CfD came to the conclusion (I don't exactly agree, but apparently this was the outcome) that "birds" = "dinosaurs" but "fictional birds" ≠ "fictional dinosaurs". 5 years later it might be worth finding a new consensus. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs descendants according to research, but in common language wikt:birds and wikt:dinosaurs are disjoint sets. There is community decision about this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_6#Birds. User:Fayenatic london, as an author of a summary, could you enforce your decision? MBH (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done – removing immediate dinosaur parents from Category:Birds, Animated films about birds and Books about birds. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The RfC was about listing the category 'Birds' at category 'Dinosaurs' and the result really should have been challenged per the discussion (can't recall if I missed the close or not), but enlarging it to include all categories seems a good faith but unwarranted add-on not backed up by the discussion. In any case, the new discussion opened by MBH is in progress and hopefully he can wait for its conclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This thread is moving far too quickly. IF discussion is happening elsewhere, it should happen elsewhere, not here. Efforts are being duplicated unneccessarily. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Village pump discussion ended without a result: several users reverts Kryn's edits, but he returns his version. Administrative enforcing needed. MBH (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@MBH you should've tried dispute resolution on @Randy Kryn's talk page, that would've been better than running straight to ANI. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious for me that he will not change his views. It's obvious, if read his comments to reverts and his comments in previous thread (VP:M). MBH (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

MBH, please note that the RfC is not ended or closed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This again? Go to CFD. According to the previous decision, the birds category was already in the dinosaurs category tree, so did not need to be added to it directly. If you can show "films about birds" is already in "films about dinosaurs" then you have an easy case to make via that CFD. More likely this is a dispute over what category in the "films about animals" tree it makes sense to use for an immediate parent. Right now it's in both film about dinosaurs and films about animals, which is redundant. Scientifically, sure, [using the extant categories] it could be under dinosaurs, which could be under reptiles, which could be under animals. The question is whether a pop culture category should be beholden to science, and that's exactly the kind of question CFD should answer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename, or split categories. This issue isn't about any of listed. MBH (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, after that CfD, Category:Films about dinosaurs was edited by Randy to include "non-avian", and similarly Category:Films about apes "non-human". I think that sort of clarification/disambiguation is reasonable but it also kind of makes edit warring about it worse IMHO. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Randy Kryn from Category:Films about birds for edit warring for nearly 3 years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Accepted, and I hear that the editors who can't wrap their head around the fact that birds are dinosaurs think that they have a point (but they really don't). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of ancestry or cladistics, it is obvious that "birds" are not "dinosaurs" in everyday English usage, or vice versa. If I said to a co-worker, "I saw an interesting bird on my walk to work today," he or she would hopefully express interest. If I said "I saw an interesting dinosaur ..." the reaction would likely be very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen a few people make this argument, but I still struggle to see its relevance. It's not a proposal to rename films about birds to films about dinosaurs. We have a category tree, "films about animals", and this debate is over whether birds should be in "films about dinosaurs" (which is in "films about reptiles", which is in "films about animals") or whether it should just be in "films about animals". So it's a question of whether scientific hierarchy should be used or something else, not about whether to call birds dinosaurs instead of birds. (Although I supposed it's worth mentioning that when Randy was adding "films about dinosaurs" it was in addition to "films about animals", which is then redundant -- the either/or seems like the correct question, and whether "birds should be directly under animals, and not dinosaurs, because people don't know about that hierarchy" is a good reason to do categorize is something I'd defer to the categorizer pros at CFD or elsewhere on). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The Films about birds category is a small part of a wider series of discussions that has included the article space, so arguments are likely moving between discussions. (For an article space example see Dinosaur size, which opens somewhat confusingly with "Size is an important aspect of dinosaur paleontology...ranging from tiny hummingbirds".) CMD (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well that sounds like more than I want to tackle. :) This categorization dispute jumped out to me initially because I was surprised to see the obsolete "birds descended from dinosaurs, but birds aren't dinosaurs" argument come into play. Whether we want some categories to be hierarchical according to scientific classification and some to be purely pop culture isn't something I care about, but it should be on that basis and not on the basis of "birds aren't dinosaurs" or the like. And certainly when we are talking about scientific subjects like "dinosaur size", put me down as strongly objecting to not talking about some dinosaurs just because some readers might not know that they are dinosaurs. If someone finds it jarring, and is led to learn more about why birds are dinosaurs, frankly that seems like a great outcome. It's understandable, of course -- that birds are dinosaurs has only been a solidly mainstream scientific consensus for a few decades now. We've had much longer to adapt our thinking to other classifications like humans being primates or the like. Omitting hummingbirds, which are in fact the smallest dinosaurs, when talking about dinosaur size just feels like doing readers a disservice. But we're well off topic for ANI purposes, and the edit warring has been dealt with by SFR above, so I'll shut up and let this resolve. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Humans looks like other primates, but birds definitely don't looks like dinosaurs. Your analogy is incorrect. MBH (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's just nonsense. Clearly a goldfinch doesn't look like a T-Rex, but does a secretary bird look like certain dromaeosaurs? Clearly, yes. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We're not obligated to write our encyclopedia in such a way that it is unsurprising to literal children. Given what you said above, you might not have first-hand experience with American-style creationism, but acting like the statement that appeals to the least-informed people must be the correct one is a big part of how they operate. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this in a non-awkward way, but Categories aren't articles, nor do they need to follow Wiki articles and academia to the letter. WP:CAT states: By grouping pages according to their essential, defining characteristics, the system allows readers to browse and efficiently locate related topics. The defining characteristic of a hummingbird is not that it is technically a dinosaur, that's just trivia. It is easy to forget that we're building an encyclopaedia for others. Making categories relevant and easily navigable for casual readers is the goal. I imagine that if a reader is reading about velociraptors or triceratops, they probably want to read about T-rexs and diplodocuses next, not ravens and warblers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING is indeed the name of the game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a category for 'films about vertebrates'? Can I add Doctor Doolittle? Or did the esteemed doctor talk to the poor spineless creatures too? Anyway, per above comments, being dinosaurs isn't a defining characteristic as far as media depictions of birds go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We have Category:Films about primates but there are several thousands of films about human beings that aren't listed in it, for some reason. CodeTalker (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

And Category:Films about talking animals is curiously lacking even Finally (film). Morwen (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems a bit presumptive and disparaging towards "casual readers". Of those "casual readers" who even click on Category: links in the first place (they don't seem to be a heavily-used feature of the site), how many would be completely perplexed by making Category:Films about dinosaurs a supercategory for Category:Films about birds, and how many would see that and be reminded of a thing they heard one time about how birds are dinosaurs now? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We aren’t forced to use clades for organizing. In common discussion, evolutionary grades are more commonly used. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I enabled subscription to this thread, but why is its location listed as WP:VPM in the notifications? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's because of the section header of this ANI section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Randy Kryn topic banned from edits regarding birds being dinosaurs

Randy Kryn has engaged in long-term disruption regarding the whether or not birds should be considered dinosaurs for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. They engaged in long term edit warring against over half a dozen editors at Bee hummingbird about whether or not it should be labelled as the "smallest dinosaur" (see ), to the point that an entire RfC had to be called to stop their antics back in 2021 . At some point, enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I should clarify here that I meant both Kryn being topic banned from editing mainspace regarding the issue, as well as participating in talkpage discussions involving the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Support It's the pits of common names being paraphyletic. I've encountered this issue regarding humans being apes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. Just looking at those edits alone...good grief. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I've seen the stuff at bee hummingbird myself, and recently at that: . I'm ambivalent about whether this rises to the degree of disruption, though. I'm open to persuasion, either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support. OK, now I'm persuaded. It's one thing to argue for a perspective that is supported by some aspects of science, but it's another to fail to drop the WP:STICK in the face of multiple reasonable arguments based on common-sense language usage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Birds ARE in Theropoda, which is under Dinosauria. Seems like a very weird thing to argue about. It's literally on the page for Bird. That said, it would probably be more meaningful if we used the class Aves, or the clade Ornithurae as they are more specific then the clade Dinosauria. Also, humans are Hominidae or "great apes," a bit more specific then the Ape super family. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage: This is not about whether birds are dinosaurs. This is about a user who is allegedly disruptive on this debate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems to me like it could be more specific, but if these are verifiable facts in reliable sources, I don't really see why it would be a debate at all. For example, if a reliable source says the "Bee hummingbird" is the smallest member of Dinosauria, that would be worth including. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I can accept that Kryn is right, yes. But should he be allowed to participate in the debate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If we're going to start banning people from participating in a debate who are correct, then we have some serious issues. Wikipedia is not a democracy, if one person is right and everyone else is wrong, that doesn't mean everyone else gets to exclude the correct person from the debate. Half a dozen editors pushing against a verifiable perspective seems a Wikipedia:POV railroad pile-on, and trying to get them banned seems like Brand, discredit and ban. Seriously, as I've stated before, Wikipedia rules are very neurotypical and western in their construction. We need to have some tolerance for people who are annoying in discussion, especially if they are correct. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As Tryptofish said below, WP:BRIE. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether birds are dinosaurs or not for these purposes is a matter of language, not cladistics. I make no comment on the "western" in Geogsage's comment but I do feel qualified to comment on "neurotypical". I don't know all of the "politically correct" terminology, especially as that varies by country, but I do not consider myself neurotypical but not autistic, and a close family member is both neurodiverse and very autistic. But, getting back to the point, the clue is in the word neurotypical (my emphasis). Per NPOV Wikipedia reflects what is typical. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's very stereotypical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We aren’t forced to use clades for organizing. In common discussion, evolutionary grades are more commonly used. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The page for evolutionary grades states "With the rise of phylogenetic nomenclature, the use of evolutionary grades as formal taxa has come under debate. Under a strict phylogenetic approach, only monophyletic taxa are recognized. This differs from the more traditional approach of evolutionary taxonomy. The difference in approach has led to a vigorous debate between proponents of the two approaches to taxonomy, particularly in well established fields like vertebrate palaeontology and botany." Sounds like a WP:BALANCE issue to insist on one while excluding the other. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BRIE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

clayed

'grade

WP:FETA EEng 20:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't make me come up with something for WP:GORGONZOLA, I'll do it dammit SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You guys need to cut the cheese. (Oh wait, that's not what I meant...) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:GORGONZOLA? Piece of cake. EEng 22:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction: piece of cheesecake. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Cake isn't cheese! NebY (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That depends on whether you treat them as clades or grades. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It would appear to me that a reminder that WP:CHEDDAR applies within all cheesyspaces may be appropriate here. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Shirt58: And I remind you, that your over-active sense of humour is also not appropriate here. And I say this for your own gouda. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Edam right! Go back to creating arthropod and belle époque painting stubs - or maybe, given your recent edits on the Bag charm, work on the various articles that link to the Sanrio character "Haloumi Kitty" --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Stinking Bishop. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia rules are very neurotypical and western in their construction. We need to have some tolerance for people who are annoying in discussion, especially if they are correct. The rules are also very much set up in a way that makes it extremely difficult to hold a minority view, and make it easy to tell editors (who very well might be correct) to shut up and go away, or in this case even push to ban them. Being wrong, making a page unbalanced, or violating neutrality is many (many, many) times more disruptive then being annoying, but if a group of editors do this in a "civil" manner, the rules make it challenging for anyone to point this out and give the group of disruptive editors a means to silence opposition. In a 5 to 1 dispute, the five editors who share a (possibly incorrect, non-neutral) viewpoint can revert a page 15 times without bumping into an issue, the one will be overwhelmed. Whichever "side" of a debate has more editors is at an inherent advantage in a dispute, regardless of what the sources say. If a rule is banning editors who are correct, the rule is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia, and enforcing such a rule is disruptive to the process. There has to be some nuance in how things are enforced. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

GeogSage, speaking as someone who is deeply on the spectrum, I find your comments like this suggesting that non-neurotypical editors need some kind of accomodation, the patronizing tone these comments carry, and the general air of deigning to speak for the non-neurotypical, as profoundly offensive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't want to get into any personal diagnoses or conditions I may or may not have, but I don't mean to offend you. However, I don't believe our policies are written in a way that Wikipedia:Assume good faith and often actively get in the way of building an encyclopedia. Particularly when it comes to how we deal with content disputes or issues on ANI, I believe that the rules on Wikipedia actively penalize things necessary to build an encyclopedia, and misunderstandings or behavior common to ADHD, autism, etc. is disproportionately impacted. Again, don't mean to offend you, but generally think that policies need a bit of an overhaul. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In paleontology, clades, absolutely. When trying to find animated films about dinosaurs, grades. Just like we adhere to common name for places, we should use the appropriate classification system that fits how people look at a particular type of classification. Paleontology and cartoons are classified differently. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The most acclaimed and successful dinosaur movie in history has the main character saying, "I bet you'll never look at birds the same way again." Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait... Isn't Hitchcock's The Birds the most acclaimed and successful dinosaur movie in history? EEng 02:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If I recall, isn't that the part where velociraptors are being compared to modern birds of prey? As in, finding similarities between two unlike things? If anything, that reinforces the point that in common parlance, birds are not considered dinosaurs. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: No. In the movie, Dr. Alan Grant is a Ph.D. paleontologist who is backing the (then less widely accepted) hypothesis that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. It is a point throughout the movie, most notably when the child (Tim) tells him that he read his book, and then starts questioning him on it, stating "Do you really think dinosaurs turned into birds? And that's where they went?" To which Grant replies, "Well, uh, a few species - - may have evolved, uh - -along those lines - - yeah." Script. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm convinced! Next, we should amend the Life article to say that it uh... always finds a way. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Being factually true does not guarantee that a claim is due, especially not for the lede. Consensus dictates what should be in the lede. This is not a position that is difficult to understand for anybody.

This is a very broad generalisation, but non-western societies, if anything, put a higher value on consensus than western societies. So while I agree that wikipedia's perspective is biased towards western understandings of reality in many ways, I do not feel the need to obtain consensus is one of them. If anything, our society severely lacks that conception in our dominant modes of economic and political organisation.

In terms of neurodiversity, I do not know anything about RK's non-standard neurological enrichment or lack thereof. However, this topic ban is a measure specifically tailored to avoid future problems in the one area they have been demonstrated to be editing disruptively. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable solution that is non-punitive in nature.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is not democracy, and per WP:DISCARD, there are a lot of things that would make an argument or vote on an issue irrelevant, including "those based on personal opinion only" and "those that flatly contradict established policy." I think that this is forgotten by closers quite a bit. As far as what I mean by how our policies are Western, this is mostly in how sanctions are administered and lifted. We leave very little room for face saving, for example. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per my arguments in previous duscussions. MBH (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support, to avoid further disruption. We have plenty of knowledgeable contributors fully capable of determining under what circumstances Wikipedia needs to engage in cladistics without having to rely on someone so clearly incapable of understanding what 'context' is, and why it matters. And as far as topic bans go, this is hardly much of a restriction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Having provoked an RfC half a decade ago seems too stale to motivate a topic ban now, and I'm not convinced that bringing a heap of WP: shortcuts to an argument is actually better than bringing basic taxonomy. The war of nitpicking against nitpicking and wiki-pedantry against cladistic accuracy is quite uninspiring. Maybe it's true that Being Right Isn't Enough, but here I am not convinced that Citing Handy Essays Elliptically Satisfies Enough. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Here's one more: nobody in common useage refers to birds as dinosaurs. And another: referring to a bird as a dinosaur in Wikivoice violates WP:ASTONISHMENT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support

Having provoked an RfC half a decade ago seems too stale to motivate a topic ban now

For something as minuscule as this, when followed up with continued disruption in the area, yes it is. Kryn's behavior reads as WP:BADGERING. — Knightoftheswords 21:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Support - while I think Randy is technically correct (the best kind of correct) in saying that birds are dinosaurs, his continued behaviour in the face of an RfC, multiple opposing editors and common usage has to stop. And in regard to GeogSage's comment that Wikipedia rules are very neurotypical and western in their construction, as an autistic person (to borrow PhilBridger's argument) there's a reason why it's called neurotypical. MiasmaEternal☎ 22:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, the number of wrong editors doesn't change the wrongness of their wrong. All it means is there is more people to leverage Wiki policy into getting their way in a content dispute. Incorrect information, or not balancing perspectives in sources, is more disruptive then just about anything. If something is "common usage," there should be a lot of sources saying so, not just the opinions of people. If referring to a bird as a dinosaur is astonishing to someone, they need to be educated. There are middle grounds that are not as punitive for behavior that is not acceptable to neurotypicals, and should be crafted in ways that make brand, discredit and ban impossible. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Another couple of things after doing some investigation - the RfC was about the "birds are dinosaurs" claim being in the lede. Even if it was included in the body, it would all be moot, given that the study cited by ScienceNews and Randy was retracted by the authors themselves. Per the ScienceNews article: On July 22, 2020, Nature retracted the study described in this article at the authors’ request. “Although the description of Oculudentavis khaungraae remains accurate, a new unpublished specimen casts doubts upon our hypothesis regarding the phylogenetic position” of Oculudentavis, paleontologist Jingmai O’Connor and her colleagues write in the retraction. A recent study posted at bioRxiv.org, a preprint server for studies that have yet to be peer-reviewed, examined the skull of Oculudentavis and suggested that it is not a dinosaur, but a lizard. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral - Randy is edit warring way too much, and perhaps trying too hard to lift up "birds are dinosaurs" fun facts beyond what is merited in a given article. He is right insofar as the basic facts go, and I can understand his frustration in that he is arguing both with people making reasonable arguments like my caveat below, but also with some really bad arguments. That's not an excuse for edit warring, and the block is justified (as other blocks will be if edit warring continues), but I'm not so sure a topic ban is warranted except as far as the edit warring is concerned (hence neutral).
  On the merits, even in the active threads about this topic right now, we have "birds aren't dinosaurs", "birds are descended from dinosaurs, but are not themselves dinosaurs", efforts to apply WP:CATDEF to other categories, and WP:ASTONISHMENT applied to plain scientific statements. If someone is astonished by "birds are dinosaurs", doesn't that mean we have done our job in providing an educational resource to someone who otherwise would not have learned that birds are dinosaurs? Same as a DYK hook or any correction to misinformation on Wikipedia. I understand that this was brought by someone who identifies as an atheist, but this "birds aren't dinosaurs" business is well-trod creationist fodder at this point. If someone is astonished by birds being dinosaurs, or humans being primates, or, to get a little more pointed, vaccines not causing autism, then we have succeeded in being a good source of information.
  A great big caveat, though: that birds are dinosaurs doesn't mean we need to add a "birds are X, which [tee hee] means dinosaurs are X!" Birds are also theropods, archosaurs, reptiles, etc. So an article about dinosaurs would sensibly cover birds, but not every article about birds needs to mention dinosaurs (or reptiles, etc.). As I said elsewhere, the question at hand with the category is, if we have "films about [animal]" that roughly correspond to scientific hierarchy (like animal -> reptile -> dinosaur -> bird), why would we not put bird under dinosaur, which is under reptile, which is under animal? Why would reptile, dinosaur, and bird all be flat under animal? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think I may be getting distracted by the many bad/incorrect arguments against Randy and not seeing that this is much more about, well, the stuff in my caveat above. Striking my neutral !vote for whatever that's worth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I am one of the people who has most butted heads with Randy on this issue. I want to make clear the extent of unreasonable anti-collaborative behaviour from him on this topic:

1. After the RFC in which he was the only one arguing that the Bee Hummingbird page should say "smallest dinosaur" in the lead, he added the phrase "largest living dinosaur" to the lead, and later the first sentence, of common ostrich. This seems like blatantly bad-faith editing against a very clear RFC result to me.
2. He is currently planning how to challenge the RFC at Bee Hummingbird while claiming not to understand why anyone would disagree with him .
3. Making pointless snarky comments on talk pages
4. Summarising opposing arguments in incredibly uncharitable ways, like saying that people are worried that his preferred wording will cause people psychosis
5. Leaving passive-agressive edit summaries
6. Quoting irrelevant Wikipedia policy WP:BLUESKY here
7. Being dishonest about the history of edits on a page. Here claiming that text that was reverted twice since added six months ago is long-term and stable , and here that text which has been reverted six times in a few months is long-term and stable
8. Making large numbers of top-level comments in the RFCs at both bee hummingbird and bird
9. Kind of subjective, but it feels like he constantly makes replies that do not quite respond to the argument that somebody is making, but instead respond as if they are saying something stupider. This is an example: , and this

Somatochlora (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Somatochlora, people are using your list to support a topic ban, so I'll answer a few items. Other "smallest" and "largest" animals are listed in their lead (smallest mammal, largest dinosaur, etc. etc.), the five-year old discussion at Bee hummingbird should be revisited. That hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur of all time, this seems lead worthy and no, I haven't edit warred it into the lead. The ostrich mention in the lead was stable, but not in the first sentence. There are other mistakes above, and why not go through and link some of my many good edits in the topic to balance out your list of the things you feel were time consuming and incorrect? Is it the way of ANI to focus solely on misgivings about someone and not take into account the benefits of their work on the topic? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment + open question re: TBAN: I remain forever astonished at the things we will argue over. Maybe it's because this all seems ludicrous to me but the wording of the scope of this proposed TBAN doesn't make sense. The reason I say this is because it's partially covering articles/portions of articles with a defined topic area ((birds are/aren't dinos) which seem quite miniscule in nature, but is potentially expandable to an enormous range of articles (any bird, or any dinosaur) should Randy choose to make his point there. So an open question to those supporting, or opposing, the TBAN: how many articles do you think the TBAN you're supporting/opposing actually covers (a range, or a rough ballpark estimate if you can't be precise). Then, of those, how many do you think were actually going to get disrupted with this dispute if not for the TBAN? I'm very curious if people proposing a topic ban here are all aligned on what that actually means. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It would apply to all pages on Wikipedia, just like any other topic ban. The second part of the question is akin to 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'; the correct answer is "we'll never know, because of the topic ban". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  "All pages on Wikipedia", but 99.999% of them have no relation to this topic, which goes to why I was asking what people's expectations are in tangible, number of article terms. And as to the second part, aside from the irony that the phrase How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? is famous precisely because the definitions involved were debated, it's meant here as a proxy for "how bad do you really think this is", e.g. do you think they're going to disrupt ALL the articles? Some of them? Beef with just a couple specific ones? As I said, maybe I'm hung up on the wording being a topic ban over the relationship between multiple topics, but do people really expect the scope of the actual impact here to be more than like a handful of discrete, specific articles (i.e. Bird, Dinosaur, Bee hummingbird, various taxonomical levels, etc.)? Because if not, then a topic ban may not be the best course of action vice p-blocking from those specific articles. And if they do expect it to be broader than that, which it seems like several of the Supports point to, then it seems like the conclusion is the behavior is disruptive and you expect the disruption to continue, so why waste time faffing about with a TBAN that's going to need yet another discussion to enforce later? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:TBAN: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather I have seen you vote for TBANs in the past, but I think this is the first time I've seen you ask how many articles exactly will be covered by the TBAN. Since when is that a factor? I'm genuinely asking. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's a factor in whether a TBAN is the appropriate response vs. other courses of action, and in determining whether people think the proposed TBAN would actually be effective, or if they even have alignment on the scope of what they expect the impact to actually cover (vs. what it can notionally cover). I have to say, I've been pretty direct about what I'm asking and I'm not sure what's so confusing about it. I'm not arguing the definition of a TBAN, or what the *policy* says it covers. I'm also not taking a position one way or another myself. I'm *asking* a question to people who have expressed support/opposition what *they* think the actual impact of this TBAN would be, because some of the votes seem somewhat incongruous with the statements I'm reading surrounding them, which both imply problems too large to be handled by a TBAN and not wide enough in scope to require one, so I think it's reasonable to ask. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've been pretty direct about what I'm asking and I'm not sure what's so confusing about it I'm also confused about what you're asking. As I read your original question, you are asking why people who believe that Randy Kryn is likely to continue to be disruptive on the topic of the classification on birds and dinosaurs more broadly than on a handful of specific articles support tbanning him from the topic rather than the specific articles, which seems to answer itself.

  Your most recent reply suggests that people supporting a tban either believe that Randy's disruption is too broad to be handled by a tban (in which case they should support a block) or too narrow (in which case they should support tailored pblocks) but having read the discussion I don't particularly see where you are getting that from. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Again, I don't understand why this is difficult for folks -- I addressed that exact issue in my comments. I'm pointing out that the comments suggest that people are either supporting a TBAN for behavior in which they already expected there to be further disruption across a wide slate of articles -- in which case a TBAN is insufficient compared to a site block for disruption or a CBAN, neither of which require subsequent followup discussions (that are likely to spiral themselves) to execute on the way a TBAN does; or they're supporting a TBAN for behavior in which they do not expect it to cover more than a small handful of articles -- in which case a P-block from specific articles is a better option, because it's self-executing and allows for constructive Talk page participation; or they're opposing because they don't believe this is even an issue rising to the level necessary to merit a TBAN in the first place. This is a discussion -- I don't think anyone would dispute that it's important to get alignment on *what* we're discussing, yet I see at least two instances of non-supporters having struck their votes because they either didn't understand or weren't aligned on what the issue actually is, while folks are voting on a sanction. So, seems to me like getting folks on the same page about what they're voting for and why is the entire purpose of this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm pointing out that the comments suggest that people are either supporting a TBAN for behavior in which they already expected there to be further disruption across a wide slate of articles -- in which case a TBAN is insufficient compared to a site block for disruption or a CBAN

  I cannot see any evidence of any TBAN supporter who is suggesting that they believe that Randy Kryn would continue disruption in the topic if subjected to a TBAN. Who do you think believes that?

  in which case a P-block from specific articles is a better option, because it's self-executing and allows for constructive Talk page participation.

  Given that a lot of Randy's alleged disruptive behaviour has taken place on talkpages, it doesn't strike me as at all inconsistent for people to want a sanction which applies to talkspace as well as articlespace. A TBAN from "disputes around the taxonomic classification of birds" in fact gives Randy in many ways more opportunity for constructive participation on talk pages – so long as they avoided that relatively narrow topic they would be free to participate constructively on both bird and talk:bird as much as they liked! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Of course you can't -- nobody's answered the question yet in which I asked the clarifying question that would reveal which side of that belief they fall on. As to whether a TBAN would enable them to participate more constructively -- I disagree, but my point is that without clarification we don't actually know whether what people are supporting is best tailored to that -- are they expecting the disruption to mostly occur in article space? Talk space? Not at all? The answer to these questions changes the value proposition of the sanction vs other possible sanctions, which is why I was hoping people would engage with answering it rather than nitpicking the format. If someone is just not interested in even having a discussion as to whether ensuring our sanctions are appropriately scoped, they don't have to answer the question. But I believe I've made myself abundantly clear by this point as to what I'm asking and why. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Of course you can't -- nobody's answered the question yet So to be clear there is no evidence that people are doing the thing you have now said three times that you see evidence of in this discussion? If there's no evidence that people are doing it yet, why on earth are you bringing it up as a concern? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I asked for input from those who have expressed a support or an oppose. Seeing as that's not you, please move along and stop misconstruing my comments in ways that stretch the assumption of good faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per GeogSage. Birds are clearly dinosaurs. If we have an issue with edit warring then perhasp a 1RR or a 0RR proposal would be better, rather than a TBAN from them stating something which is clearly correct. TarnishedPath^talk 02:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Birds are dinosaurs, just as apes are fish. However, there are times and places where it is not important or even useful to say this. These times and places are decided by consensus. Somatochlora has demonstrated that RandyKryn is consistently creating situations which use up large amounts of the community's time because the consensus is against him. The ostrich example and the fact they are planning another RfC suggests to me Randy needs stopped here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Boynamedsue. Birds are not only dinosaurs, but also ornithodirans, avemetatarsalians, archosauriforms, archosauromorphs, diapsids, and so on. It makes no sense to force these facts into articles that are not focused on the evolutionary history of birds. RandyKryn shows WP:ICANTHEARYOU mentality and it needs to stop. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Grudgingly support. I also agree that Randy is correct in the substance, but continues to show appalling bad judgement about where that has to feature in articles. Wikipedia is doing just fine in communicating bird/dinosaur cladistics, and does not benefit from that one over-enthusiastic person jumping up and down in front of the cameras with a hand-painted sign saying "Birds are dinosaurs!!" It's come to the point that whenever I see his name pop up on my watchlist, I can be sure he has found another outlet for pushing the point in an inappropriate place. Apparently two overwhelming RFCs just made him go look for the next place to scratch that itch. Stop it please, it's a recurrent waste of time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is Randy really 'correct in the substance' though? Sure, cladistics tells us that 'birds are dinosaurs', and that if 'birds' weren't included in the Dinosauria clade, they'd be a paraphyletic group. The thing is, in common usage they are a paraphyletic group. It isn't Wikipedia's job to enforce cladistics on common usage, and if it were, we'd have to engage in some radical rewriting of several key articles. rabbits aren't a clade (some rabbit species are more closely related to hares than to some other rabbit species), neither are monkeys. And then look at fish: Homo sapiens is a descendent of the bony fish (Osteichthyes), and we are more closely related to e.g. a lake trout than the trout is to a spiny dogfish - not a bony fish. Should we delete the 'fish' article, or include Homo sapiens in the category 'fish? Clearly not, unless we want to confuse our readers. Where it is relevant (i.e. in articles on species, etc) we should discuss the matter, obviously, and make the relationships clear, but attempting to remove paraphyletic groups from the English language in such places as our categories of movies is way beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia, and frankly absurd. 'Movies about birds' aren't 'movies about dinosaurs', despite Randy Kryn's insistence, because people don't classify movies according to the rules of cladistics: they do so by common usage. In that particular case, Randy Kryn is simply wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Precisely this. The unqualified word and phrase "dinosaur" and "bony fish" can refer either to clades or to paraphyletic grades. In non-taxonomic contexts, the expectation is that they will refer to the grades, just as "fruit" is interpreted in most contexts in the culinary rather than the botanical sense. Choess (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak support; I've been watching the discussions on the wider "birds are dinosaurs" topic for a while, and in my reading RK has been badgering discussions repeatedly and introducing unneeded negativity and heat into otherwise calm discussions. See, for instance, Talk:Bird#RfC Should the First Sentence of the Bird Article Mention Dinosaurs and the preceding sections. RK evidently needs a break from the area; his arguments are right, but that is no excuse for his subpar behaviour over a fairly long time. JavaHurricane 07:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. See in particular the "psychosis" comment on the Talk:Bird RfC. Sesquilinear (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sesquilinear, please put things like this in context, thanks. You do realize that many editors have commented that readers would be surprised and worse at finding out that birds are dinosaurs and have used that reasoning to oppose, which is what that comment refers to. And please link it along with the context as long as you are using it to support blocking me, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It was linked by Somatochlora above: . And I don't really think context makes it better. Sesquilinear (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support, as Randy Kryn has not respected consensus. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support lack of willingness to follow consensus, or indeed and more bafflingly, common sense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose full ban, Support ban from categories about birds and dinosaurs Since I'm blocked from the category would someone please watch for things like this with misleading edit summaries, thanks. Yes, I've gone overboard on the categories, but in mainspace discussions it's easy to pick a sentence or ten from the bulk of commentary to make someone look unhinged on a topic and then not balance that with links to constructive encyclopedia-improving examples. Some quick answers: the discussion at Bird was about removing a 4 1/2 month old stable edit in the first sentence. I was not the editor who placed that edit but, since there was a discussion. I did defend its accuracy. The bee hummingbird discussions concern the fact that this bird is literally the smallest known dinosaur of all time and, per consistency, seems lead worthy (other "smallest" and "largest" known types of animals, smallest known mammal, largest known dinosaur, etc., have that fact contained in their lead). Hopefully my long-term good contributions concerning encyclopedic awareness that birds are avian dinosaurs can survive in mainspace. I do not edit or watchlist many bird and dinosaur articles, just a literal handful of obvious ones. How about a full topic ban on birds/dinosaurs in categories, where I have made mistakes, but allow reasonable mainspace edits of long-term existing information. My apologies to any editor who has felt adversely impacted by my comments in talk page discussions on this topic, although I do not apologize for the intent of creating and maintaining an accurate encyclopedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Long-term edit-warring against consensus, inability to let go, apparent inability to take in other people's arguments and opinions. I was particularly struck by his very recent response to the admin who gave him the partial block from the films category, where he claimed that the editors on the other side of the issue "almost all based their reverts on their belief that birds are not dinosaurs. That's like saying that the Sun in not a star". Which is clearly, factually wrong, and suggests a rather crass failure to listen to what they were actually arguing. That, and the tendency of re-stirring the conflict on multiple different pages when he loses his case on another, makes this disruptive editing in my book. (Note I'm saying this as someone who absolutely loves the notion that birds are dinosaurs .) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that I should be banned from categories related to birds being dinosaurs. My mistake was thinking that Category:Films about birds could be in two categories at once, that of Category:Films about animals and Category:Films about dinosaurs, when, apparently, it can only be in one. If only one, of course the community has come to the correct decision. On the other extreme, please note that the Category:Feathered dinosaurs has now been removed from Category:Birds, and where is the logic in that removal? And yes, many reverting editors have used language about birds not being dinosaurs as their reason for removing or reverting something. No, I do not page hop to continue any disruption, I address concerns and enter discussions brought by others when they pop up on my watchlist. Thanks for the cartoon link, it looks like Randall may have used my exact language in the caption. He is one of Wikipedia's treasures. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is sort of ridiculous. As far as I can tell, all of the diffs supporting a supposed pattern of disruption are almost five years old. I think a self-imposed ban on editing categories on birds/dinosaurs is enough. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sławomir Biały, I don't think you've looked very hard at this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  All the diffs in my post above are from this year, and are not on category pages. Somatochlora (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Rhododendrites and Jens Lallensack lay out above how the information being "right" in a narrow isolated sense misses the wider context of the topic. Randy Kryn's later oppose above shows that this cladistic understanding is still not grasped, and demonstrates the fixation Elmidae covers. Given the evidence that disruption has been ongoing for a few years, a TBan is likely to have a preventative effect. CMD (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to suggest to Randy that our categories are a consensus construct, so it's best to be willing to live with and in the human arbitrariness from one own's perspective such a system may entail, at least on the edges. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Less than an hour ago Randy was still relitigating the bee hummingbird RfC in a discussion on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page. Failure to drop the stick is why we're having this proposal in the first place, and it hasn't appeared to have happened yet. --tony 16:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support. As highlighted by Jens and various others, tho technically correct, Randy showcases a certain disregard for whether or not birds being dinosaurs is actually relevant to the topic at hand. Again I wish to highlight that the claim itself is correct and I do not object to it, but I fail to see how dropping that as a "one-off" fun fact on a select few bird pages is anything but irrelevant. Afterall is the blue whale, cladistically speaking, not the largest amniote? Tho correct, it doesn't tie into anything else on the page, much like how throwing in "bee hummingbird is the smallest dinosaur" doesn't ultimately add anything but to mention dinosaurs for the sake of mentioning dinosaurs. Similarily, while yes phylogenetically movies about birds are also movies about dinosaurs, I do feel it worth highlighting how as movies they are very different beasts alltogether (in that regard I also somewhat question having movies about birds within movies about reptiles, but thats neither here nor there). Ultimately, the average reader is not going to be looking for "Free Birds" in the category "Movies about dinosaurs", correct as it may otherwise be. Armin Reindl (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I also think the fact that this is something that's been going on for years in a seemingly pretty one-sided effort with no attempts at respecting the greater consensus from both paleontology and non-paleontology editors alike is fairly telling. If it had been an issue of unfamiliar editors simply dismissing science it would be one thing, but I am aware of various people actively working on dinosaurs and other prehistoric life that find this insistence to be unfounded and out of place. It's not a case of science denialism, but that its simply not all that relevant, with a very one-sided effort to push so otherwise. Armin Reindl (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Edit warring has also happened on topics besides the one stated, like at Martin Luther King Jr. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support this is long overdue. Instead of "being right isn't enough" it should probably be "being right about a technicality doesn't override all other precepts of encyclopedia writing, such as WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, et al." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per TonySt's comment above and the attempt to relitigate.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Breach of NPA, disruptive editing and reference forging

User Vitoria85 has repeatedly insulted me in their edit summaries (, , , , ). As you can see in the latest link, they also engaged in an extreme example of disruptive behavior, for they edited the content of a literal quotation so that the source would say whatever they want it to say (link repeated here ), i.e., they forged the content of the reference. Adding to their disruptive behavior, they keep restoring once and again the edits that a few "mysterious" IPs made on several Valencia-related pages (, , , (, , among others), which were immediately reverted by many other users (, , , , , ,, , , , , , and the list is not even exhaustive). Finally, one of those IPs ended up blocked for personal attacks against another user, and the page Valencian language got protected to prevent IP editing. Barely 4 hours after this, Vitoria85, a user with barely 3 edits, re-appeared after 8 years on inactivity, and the first thing yhey did was to restore all the changes that the non-registered user(s) preferred (, , ). They now insist that the vandal IPs version was the stable one and they keep urging the users who reverted the IPs to "consensuate" the version they restored (). A few days ago they returned after months of inactivity and restored, once again, versions of pages in which they had already been immediately reverted (here, for instance, you can find their original edit: , the RV: and, once again, their new attempt at restoring their version: ), as well as the contributions of yet two other "mysterious" IPs ( and ; compare with , , and ). Pretty disruptive, as you can see. Glottonymia (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The connection of the blocked IP and Vitoria85 accounts seems extremely WP:DUCKy to me; pinging Black Kite who blocked the former. Also Glottonymia, please note the notice at the top of this page about notifying the other editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Glottonymia (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It does look (especially from the timing) particularly suspicious, I have to admit. A CU would be useful but the IPs of the TA accounts are I believe now out of range (they certainly are for us mere admins). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Obvs not a CU, but I'm aware from SPI's that they can't connect TA's to named accounts - it's got to be done behaviourally (apologies if you're already aware of this). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, having been an admin for 19 years I am quite aware of that, however a CU will generally still block an account that is operating on the IP range of a blocked IP/TA and is clearly the same editor. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've learned something new today, thanks! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Stadt67 – Threaten to report while still breaking policy?

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

---

Stadt67 is edit-warring on Oliver Tree and broke 3RR by making 4 reverts in 24 hours.

Here are the diffs: 1. 2. 3. 4.

They are reverting multiple editors to consistently place their own version and seem to be the only editor doing so. After they left me a message on my talk page saying I broke 3RR (which I don't recall doing so) for which I later responded to, I left a message on their talk page about their behavior and breaking policy. They later deleted my message, accusing me of retaliatory behavior, and threatened to report me to ANI instead of discussing a solution to said edit war.

Since they refuse to use the talk page and keep breaking the revert limit, I'd like an admin to intervene in this and hopefully resolve this. ConeKota (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@ConeKota: Please refile this at WP:ANEW. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ConeKota (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

DannyCutterAnderson unwilling to follow NPA

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

---

Last month, DannyCutterAnderson (talk · contribs) (DCA) was brought to ANI for disruption and personal attacks. After failing to acknowledge the community's concerns with their conduct, the discussion culminated in them being blocked for a week. The blocking admin, Morwen, hoped that DCA would "take this time and reflect and come back with a calmer approach". This did not happen. Comments like stop trying to be cleaver with this obviously your not David Attenborough (), i think you need to be banned for sheer incompetence (), and you all need your heads checked if you think about deleting this () all suggest both a clear unwillingness to abide by NPA. I don't see any indication that an escalating block would alter course for DCA, as they can't even make it a month without back-to-back attacks on multiple editors. Indef 'em and let's move on. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I second this, as I was actually just about to make an ANI post about his conduct myself. I was involved in a few discussions involving this user and specifically a draft they were working on which was about the 'franchise' surrounding Stephen King's 1986 novel It. I have had several discussions with them regarding this draft, most of which consisted of them insulting me or others (I don't think anyone should listen to you anyway, diff) and/or not listening. As much as I hate to say this, they have demonstrated that they haven't learned their lesson from their previous block and may continue to be uncivil towards others. It may be best to indef him while he can still hold his head high; we've given him enough WP:ROPE. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks combined with continued hostility mixed with indifference towards policies (e.g., Special:Diff/1359745035) = indef — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sneaking in post close to note the creation of Bobterrygray in a (failed) attempt to clean start. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

LepYd258 - WP:UNRESPONSIVE, completely ignores user talk page messages & all warnings

Risking sounding like a broken record, User:LepYd258 (talk) (aka User:Ydlp19 (talk)) has an extremely long history of making unsourced edits without edit summaries, even though over almost 7 years many people have left numerous warnings & helpful messages on their talk page. Even three other ANI posts have been made about them, with NO conclusion.

• User repeatedly adding unsourced edits, unresponsive to concerns
• User not responding to talk page concerns after consistent addition of unsourced and improper English skills
• Ydlp19 making unsourced changes

I would recommend reading the first one for a general overview of their problems (I wrote it, after all), but in a nutshell (in no particular order):

• Lack of edit summaries, WP:UNRESPONSIVE: 2.9% as LepYd258, and 1.4% as Ydlp19.
• WP:CIR: &
• Since Late October 2019, they've only edited their own user talk page once, not acknowledging any of the many warnings and questions. Very likely WP:NOTHERE: LepYd258 (0 edits), and Ydlp19 (1 edit)

I strongly believe something has to be done, most likely a block to make them realize the issues with their editing. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Tagging @Yoblyblob pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As with previous discussion that I have been involved in, this user has continued to make the same mistakes flagged there. I believe a block is best, at the very least temporarily to get their attention as nothing else seems to have worked. Hopefully this discussion reaches a solution as none of the others have been able to. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

An article namespace block seems best until we can get communication from them. – LuniZunie_(talk) 04:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked both accounts from article space. Any admin is free to lift the block should they be convinced that the issues outlined above have been satisfactorily resolved and that the issue would not recur. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User:LepYd258, 0 communication with numerous warnings

This user was brought to ANI about a week ago and the thread received one comment that didn't really do much other than be a comment (no offense of course). I would like a closer look to be taken at this user.

Just now, this user did a cut & paste move on Football Club Kharkiv. I cleaned this up and left them a talk page message, however I noticed they have not responded to a single concern raised on their talk page (which there are a ton of). From what I can pick out, the user may not be the best at English, but the lack of edit summaries (an astounding 3.5% / 1.1% usage!), lack of change, and lack of response to concerns raised by other editors has become disruptive. The same issues are also present on their old, abandoned account, User:Ydlp19; in fact, between these two accounts (with over 15k edits), they have responded to exactly 1 talk page message here.

Again, I am inclined to give them a decent amount of rope since they may struggle with English, but the amount of warnings they've received without response (particularly about unsourced content) has reached a point. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course, as writing this @pattersonuwu has sniped me, I've made my report as a subsection. – LuniZunie_(talk) 03:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

PROMISE that wasn't intentional xD pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks and potential threats on User:Bridget

The dispute seems to have started after Bridget added an {{Undisclosed paid}} tag to the page PJ Schulte (diff), began cleaning up the article, and later proposed the article for deletion (diff). After the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag was added, ~2026-35304-58 added a message to her talk page asking why the tag was added and claiming to be the subject of the article (diff). After noticing the PROD he got more aggressive, calling Bridget a "miserable nobody" (diff). Another TA, ~2026-28501-90 (possibly the same person), then calls her a "miserable human being" (diff) and a "fraud" (diff). Another editor, Paragonwest, who had recently created their account (could also be the same person) commented that she's "[d]efinitely a paid rep. They are talking about her on SWAPD. They are trying to find out who she is via IP tracking." (diff) They also said that "[i]t’s been brought to our attention from multiple users on Swapd.com that you are taking payment to edit and remove Wikipedia pages." (diff) Swapd has listings offering to deindex negative articles for payment, so I would think this and mentioning that non-admins off-site are attempting to find her identity using her IP would be enough for an indefinite block for Paragonwest. The temp accounts should also be blocked but I don't know how long for. Streetr4 (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed the TAs for PAs; those are pretty clear-cut.

I've done the same with Paragonwest, who is clearly in on this, but so far all they've really done is sling some (likely unfounded) accusations at Bridget, so I'm a bit less confident with that block. If someone thinks I've overstepped the mark, feel free to lift or reduce the block. Or perhaps Paragonwest can come up with a compelling appeal, who knows? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I endorse the block of Paragonwest. Coming to Wikipedia to attack a highly active editor of long standing without a shred of evidence except some mention of a dodgy website like Swapd is completely unacceptable. Bridget has been active for 6-1/2 years, has over 47,000 edits and has never been blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Low quality articles - Tortilla2005

• Tortilla2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been creating a number of low quality articles, many of which fail WP:V. From a spot check, the statement "She later faced criticism and was blamed by other political figures that she was one of the key reasons for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to not win in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election." in Nivaashiyni Krishnan and a few paragraphs in Anantha Padmanabhaswamy, which could also be AI hallucinated content. Three of their articles have already been deleted and one is currently at AfD. With no communication on their talk page and a clear lack of understanding as to why an article was draftified, they should be restricted to creating articles only in the draft space. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Lux. clubs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philk84#%F0%9F%91%8B%F0%9F%91%86

seems as person (or his wikipedia impersonator) unrelated to the topic, citing 4 year old article / while salary source is recently updated

until solution, best regards ~2026-35474-96 (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:OUTING data removed, redacted and OS requested. @~2026-35474-96 do not post other peoples personal information. KylieTastic (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It is common knowledge in Luxembourg that the National Division is semi-professional at best. All other league clubs are mostly amateur. As most players have a second job, I doubt the information from the Erieri source covers all players, and takes into account their football only wage - which, as the user states in their updates, would put some players at below minimum wage.

Yes, my main source for this is 4 years ago, but Luxembourgish football is hardly evolving and the clubs are still required to be not for profit organisations (ASBL).

What steps can I take to prevent this user (who is already on their second temporary account) adding "professional" to articles that cannot be proved? I know BlueSky can't be used as a source, but an RTL journalist answered this post last year for me. I can provide the link, but I'd rather not as it contains my personal bluesky account.

Phil 12:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a consolidation of what reliable sources have published, in accordance with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If the information isn't published in a reliable source, it can't go into an article. @~2026-35474-96 sources should be added as an inline citation, putting it in an edit summary is not sufficient.

Using a source to say that a wage makes a player or club professional is original research and not permitted. You need a reliable source that explicitly states this is a professional club/player and cannot decide this yourself.

Please also note that ANI is for chronic, long term behavioural issues that can't be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes, this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

user can try luck by checking if more admins prefer 2022 or 2026 sources, meanwhile find sources how many top clubs are out of "minimum pro wage"

this should conclude my section ~2026-35474-96 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Admins don't deal with content disputes, this is something you need to discuss with the Wikipedia community on the relevent article Talk page. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia can only summarise what reliable sources explicitly any clearly say; we can't take source A (e.g wages) and source B (definitions of professional players/clubs) and make an analysis of what they mean together - that would be synthesis, a form of original research.

You can instead try to find reliable sources that state a club/player is professional level, and use that as a source - if you find any, you can ask what other editors think on the article Talk page before adding them since there's been a previous dispute. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ban evasion of indeffed user Rumumiken through temp account

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

---

Rumumiken was indeffed due to genocide denial and other disruptive editing at Treaty of Lausanne . The temp account ~2026-35282-56 leaves several messages at the talk page of the article continuing these same habits , mentioning an "Article 59" like Rumumiken did. These are definitely the same person, though I've decided to report it to ANI as SPI has restrictions on revealing information about temp accounts. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well there you go . Can someone please indeff? PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to be indeffed for your hijacking attempts of the article and filling it with total nonsense for propaganda purposes.

You are nit banning me but this Turkish public ip which is under use of thousands and as a result just increase the outbreak in Turkiye against the actions of Wikipedians btw.

Instead rewrite the article and stay historically corrected. ~2026-35282-56 (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Should definitely be indefinitely blocked considering that they are WP:NOTHERE as they persistently make personal attacks, even on this thread. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You are the genocide denier and gate keeper of the treaty of lausanne with a total nonsense.

How dare you remove the reference article 59 of those treaty, it is the only genocide mentioned in lausanne, the Turkish genocide done by Greek army and administration. ~2026-35282-56 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, can you indeff this account too ? Same person using a new temp account. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The trouble is, they're IP-hopping, so this may turn into never-ending whac-a-mole. Would it be better to slap autoconfirmed PP on the article and/or talk pages? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That's probably the better solution here, I'm all for it. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Considering the continued replies , protection is better granted sooner than later. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Protection is necessary at this point, even for the talk page, due to the persistent block evasion. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting ongoing activity in talk. Borgenland (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, had to step out for a while, and coming back I find that SFR has already PP'd the talk (the article was already done yesterday), so I can just slope off now. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

TA account not citing sources

• ~2026-21155-37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-35332-99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)– On Expedition 74 among others, TA user has a pattern of making, admittedly useful edits, but does not add citations, despite all four levels of warnings have being given. After final warning, eduts appeared to continue under a new temp account as ~2026-35332-99. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Suicide language warrior

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

---

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

User has been warring in a change from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide" on a couple articles (diff, diff). I reverted them and warned them about MOS:STYLERET at at User talk:Afuntyme#June 2026, and their response was If I'm editing an article that contains the phrase "committed suicide", I am going to change it.", which is not okay. I'm requesting some assistance here. Side note, given the nature of their edits and the short age of their account (a few days), I suspect something fishy, but have anything more specific to go on. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems like they are going about and righting great wrongs. GarethBaloney (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:SUICIDE, I don't see a problem with these changes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS allows use of "committing suicide" as a style matter. STYLERET says that stylistic choice shouldn't be changed without "some substantial reason for the change". Mere preference isn't sufficient. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, Deacon, I notice you made a point of reverting someone else's "die by suicide" change as "inappropriate" a month and a half after it was made. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The change, in principle, is good - 'commit suicice' is an outdated phrase. GiantSnowman 15:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

We had a number of long discussions on that. "died by suicide" is also problematic. "Took their own life" or "killed themself" are better alternatives, and there is simply no consensus on the matter of replacement. Thus STYLERET. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not good, and "commit" is not outdated, and we've been over this at the MOS time and time again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You are wrong. GiantSnowman 16:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

These opinions do not undo the extensive discussions we've had. — Czello ^(music) 16:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

However problematic "died by suicide" might be, it's still listed as one of the "many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide", and the MOS recognizes that many manuals discourage "commit". There might not be one single warrior here. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In these instances, "committed" is the status quo wording and should be retained unless the MOS says otherwise (which it doesn't) or if Afuntyme gets consensus for the change after it's challenged. Persisting is the warrior behaviour. — Czello ^(music) 17:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS indeed says that "style manuals have come to avoid commit suicide", and so is clearly outdated, at least outside the Wiki. An editor who has no idea that middle management decided to one-up the world would consider that a substantial reason for change. So the STYLRET would not even make sense to that editor.

Persistent stalling, say based on QUO, is indeed warring. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolving content disputes or overturning existing RFC or other consensus-based guidelines, no matter its merits. DMacks (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see that case, I think some other suicide-language changer had been at work for a while undetected (User:Eshapland). Once finally noticed, it's not unreasonable to look at their pattern and undo more than just those that were very recent. DMacks (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sarek, yes I did. The (original, not the one here) editor made the same change on another article I was watching, so I took a look through their contribs and found a couple older, undetected ones. This is a recurring problem, that random editors will pop up and make this change, often going unnoticed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I quite admire Afuntyme's effrontery to quote the relevant 2021 RfC in an edit summary and completely ignore the following sentence of the close. That level of intentional disrespect takes guts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The next sentence is Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. You are interpreting ... two? changes as "everywhere it is found"? This comes up frequently. On one side are the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Association of Suicidology, Suicide Awareness Voices of Education, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, the Trevor Project, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, World Health Organization, the AP Stylebook, etc. On the other are Wikipedians who say "well it's technically not banned on Wikipedia, so stop RGW!". Every time someone is reported for changing this language, there is also someone following behind them restoring the outdated wording -- just as much of a warrior, but heading in the wrong direction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether 10 people do 2 things each or one person does all 20 things themself, the effect is the same. Is it not problemlatic to have a slow ooze of change that would be more noticeable and considered "widespread" if done all at once? I don't think it's a problem to undo the 10 sets of 2 changes on the same basis as one would undo the set of 20 changes. I don't think "heading in the wrong direction" is supported by the existing discusison-based consensus. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Rhododendrites this isn't a slow ooze of change - it's a slow ooze of improvement. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please start a new RFC to get consensus to overturn the previous one that keeps getting cited to oppose the change. Otherwise, "improvement" does not appear to be supported by consensus, and ANI is not the place to continue that process. DMacks (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you please link to this half-decade-old RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223 see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language. TSventon (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

OK having looked at the definition I don't see a carte-blanche to keep "committed suicide" in all cases. Rather I see a suggestion that people apply discretion on a case-by-case basis and guided by use in reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

In the case of the Chernobyl physicist we are dealing with very old sources and so we would expect archaic language. However, of three citations to his death by suicide, only one uses the term "committed suicide" and that refers to his death as an "alleged suicide" rather than stating such factually. This specific case really is quite marginal as to whether the term "committed" would be appropriate per the RfC in question. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think what matters is that MOS:SUICIDE is a style guideline and STYLERET controls here. I don't think the RfC close language is all that relevant here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS, likewise, does not bind people either to retain "committed" nor to delete it. Rather "committed" is mentioned as outmoded but not disallowed with alternatives presented. This whole thing is quite clearly a content dispute where a few entrenched editors are treating MOS guidance and an aged RfC closure too expansively to attempt to propose an editor making a good-faith improvement is being disruptive. I propose no action beyond a passel of trout. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:STYLERET says in its first paragraph to retain existing style unless there's a compelling reason not to. Since the community has decided "committed suicide" is allowed as a stylistic matter, not liking it or thinking it's archaic is insufficient to change the existing style without consensus IMO, and continuing to do so after warnings would be disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If there is a matter of wording for which the MOS explicitly declines to prohibit or endorse any of the options, why would STYLERET be relevant? Except, of course, insofar as absolutely anyone editing any wording in any article is just a stylistic choice that can be reverted purely on the grounds that the MOS doesn't take a position on the words they're using? Obviously there are potential issues with people having strong feelings on sensitive topics like this that can predispose the topic to tendentious editing, but tendentious editing is its own thing -- it doesn't need STYLERET. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't prohibit the use of American or British English, but STYLERET still prohibits changing one to the other. Similarly, MOS:SUICIDE says various style choices are acceptable when discussing suicide. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

STYLERET is about style within an article. It says that if an article has a consistent "style", then one needs a reason to change it. Applying that to "commit" is tenuous at best. As far as I can see, it has just been used to support the accusation of warring. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A style guide exists to say what words should be use in what way. MOS:SUICIDE is literally in the Manual of Style, and as that section notes, various external style guides address this question. Whether we use "commit" or "died by" or something else is very clearly a style issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No Rhododendrites, I am interpreting "If I'm editing an article that contains the phrase "committed suicide", I am going to change it" as "tendentiously removing "commit suicide"". Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No, going on a removal spree would be tendentious. Running across it in an article you're already working on isn't. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, the MOS says that "committed suicide" is fine, so this should be open-and-shut and Afuntyme needs to drop the stick. Otherwise it's simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Czello ^(music) 16:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is about the weakest definition of "fine" you can find around here. The phrase committed suicide is neither recommended nor banned on the English Wikipedia, although "style manuals have come to avoid commit suicide, which is now considered insensitive because of its whiff of criminality". There are many other appropriate, common, and encyclopaedic ways to describe a suicide.... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really the point. If it's accepted, then it's accepted. Ultimately, there is no policy to change away from the use of the word "committed". — Czello ^(music) 17:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll also add, as this is something I've noticed for a while now, there are some editors who will, upon any discovery of the use of the word "committed", try to change it. If they do this by default, it is tantamount to the MOS policy prohibiting "committed", which it doesn't. That is why this change cannot be made by default, and instead the status quo should be retained unless consensus is achieved on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 17:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I think we should stop using the phrase and I think the objections to barring it are extremely weak, but it is what it is. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this. Changing it "incidentally" is still a way of passively pushing to deprecate it entirely, which isn't supported at this time. DonIago (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"You don't have consensus" is never a good reason to revert. I'm sure you can find the proper code word for that. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

"BRD" isn't really a word, but it seems to apply to that sort of situation. Please be careful to AGF of the reverter and assign equal weight to their belief in their position, barring evidence to the contrary. DMacks (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If that belief is "there is no consensus", then it isn't a sound one, whether the editor holds it in good faith or not. Consensus isn't a reason. It's a process. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It does look like there is a small multi-party edit-war going on between a group of established editors and a group of newer editors. This is not covering anyone in glory but WP:BITE would encourage us to explain to new editors why edit warring is wrong rather than immediately dragging them to the dramaboards. On the other hand, WP:BITE does not apply to long-established editors who should know to take a content dispute like this to article talk to determine what the consensus actually is. Again. This is Trout territory. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:STYLERET is, though, and exactly why someone wanting to make the change should get consensus. — Czello ^(music) 18:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

When I saw this thread I assumed it was going to be someone going through articles systematically to remove the phrase "commit suicide". Someone changing it when they happen to encounter it is not a problem. As far as I can tell the RFC close allows this, and even slightly encourages it; it is not tendentiously remov[ing] "commit suicide" everywhere it is found to do this even if you announce an intent to keep doing this. That language is for systematically going through lists of articles to remove the older phrasing everywhere. Loki (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with people removing "committed suicide" and using an alternative phrasing. But frankly, I do have a problem with people who insist on putting it back, specifically in the cases of more recent deaths. Frankly, those people need to have a think about what they're actually doing, in relation to friends and relatives of the subject and their feelings. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am one of those friends. One of my friends committed suicide a few years ago, and I still see her daughter whenever I go to the shop where she works. I certainly have a problem with this "died by suicide" formulation that implies that she didn't have agency. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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

---

• ~2026-32088-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In Foreign relations of Croatia, he has broken the three-revert rule by always adding Bhutan to the diplomatic relations list, even if it is poorly sourced. Underdwarf58 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The first step in WP:DR isn't for parties to continue edit warring until someone violates WP:3RR, and then report them here. No attempt at discussion has been made on the TA's talk page nor on the article talk page. I've initiated discussion on the article talk page and pinged the involved parties. Any further edit warring will be met with blocks. Go talk it over. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Etymology LTA

Please see this for context. There is an LTA that has been consistently editing under the same IP range. One of the ranges was blocked last year but it has now shifted slightly so they are now able to continue the disruption. See this, this, this, and this as some examples of their most recent edits. I do not remember the original account but I recall the sock Каштанов Варелий (talk · contribs), which is globally locked. I think we just need to block the range they are currently editing under. Thanks in advance. Mellk (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Reporting Malicious Updating of Information

how do we report malicious updating of information ~2026-31924-24 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for issues of editor conduct, not content. If there are behavioral issues with particular editors please name them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Afrika Mayibuye Movement, article, the issue of editor conduct appears to be your conduct. . You've attempted to add your own personal editorializing, and you changed prose in the article to no longer be in line with the source provided (and didn't provide a new source as one would for a legitimate change in information). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider - deleting GA review comments and hounding

The Blue Rider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted my GA review comments and then opened a retaliatory review for one of my own GA nominations.

I am reviewing this user's GA nomination Talk:Tamara_Bunke/GA3. During the source spot-check (starting here) where I identified CLOP and source integrity issues, they repeatedly marked things as "fixed" but the issues were not fixed. See my major revisions here and here as two examples where I noted which spot-check issues were not fixed & also pointed out additional issues I noticed upon re-review. When I said I wanted to mark the nomination as unsuccessful (see my reasoning), the user disagreed and then they opened a review for my own GA nomination.

I didnt notice at first, but they deleted 7 of my review comments: deleted 4 comments (06:47, 16 June 2026); deleted 2 comments (06:48, 16 June 2026); deleted 1 comment (08:01, 16 June 2026). I caught two of these deletions and reverted with the following edit summaries: "Please do not remove my comment" (08:11, 16 June 2026) and then "Please stop deleting my comments" (13:15, 16 June 2026). Whatever they intended with the deletions, the effect is that you can't tell from the review page just how many times I had to keep marking the same spot-check issue as "not fixed". I expressed concern about these deletions, but my comment has not been acknowledged by the user.

Note the order and timestamps of deletions and the retaliatory review, all within 10 minutes. I think this demonstrates that the review they opened for my GA nomination was intended to harass or intimidate me:

• deletes 4 comments + adds comment "All concerns were promptly fixed" at 06:47
• deletes 2 commnents at 06:48
• edits their comment at 06:55
• opens retaliatory review at 06:57

By the way, I haven't closed this user's GA nomination yet, despite indicating that I would, because I'm following the rules of the GA June backlog drive (as a newbie reviewer, I'm waiting for an experienced reviewer to weigh-in). I also tried asking for advice on the backlog drive talk page, but ultimately I decided to come here because I think I need more assistance than what they can give me there.

Is there anything that can be done to prevent this user from opening retaliatory reviews for my GA nominations? (I thought about asking them not to hound me, but I am wary of getting into an argument. Plus, the review has still been opened.) Would you consider deleting their review page of my nomination so I can renominate the article? And if you can do this, will a legitimate review in the future show as a "GA1" review? Thank you for your help. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 22:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• This is a bad use of the ANI;
• The comments were deleted by aciddent -- just like happened with me deleting my own edits at the article --, I think its because I opened various tabs of the same page.
• Anyone can review your article, including me. I havent even started the review, how the fuck am I hounding.

The Blue Rider 22:50, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Your assertion that you deleted things by accident is not supported by the edit history. For example:

• Here, I added review comments throughout the page:
• Then you selectively deleted 4 of my comments:

If you were accidentally viewing and editing an old version of the page, then your edit with the deletions would have reverted more of my comments. But, as we can see, your deletion was very selective. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 23:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

When I was editing Bunke's article only certain parts were also deleted, so I assume the same happened there. The Blue Rider 23:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The instances where you accidentally deleted your edits on the Bunke article are not the same thing. Take these three sequential edits:

1. You add 2 name params to references:

2. Then you remove a phrase about biographer Jon Lee Anderson & update page numbers for a ref:

3. Then you accidentally revert your previous 2 edits in their entirety while adding new information:

This is not the same as the review deletions I outlined in my previous comment. Here, you are accidentally reverting edits in their entirety. But with your deletions of my comments on the GA review, you did not accidentally revert my whole edit; you selectively deleted specific comments that were just part of my edit.

If I'm mistaken, please someone let me know. I don't want to disparage anyone unnecessarily. But to me, the edit history speaks for itself. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 23:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I stand by what I said; also, this whole thread is a waste of my, yours and the administrators resources so I won't comment further. The Blue Rider 23:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If that's all The Blue Rider has to say, I think some sanction is appropriate. I cannot imagine an accident which deletes only some of the comments added in a single diff, but not all. I'm not sure what sanction is appropriate, given their history, but this seems like smacking something out of someone's hand then, after a few seconds, saying "oops". I suppose it beats the insults from previous history, but it's still definitely not acceptable, and fits the theme of a past block of theirs for modifying others' comments. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

My previous blocks are completely irrelevent for this ANI; but keep up the good work WP: KNITer, maybe one day you will achieve what you go to bed thinking everyday. The Blue Rider 00:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I am familiar with both of these users. I know Chao Garden as a principled and thoughtful GA reviewer from Talk:Disney's Aladdin (Sega Genesis video game)/GA1, and as one of the most promising new content creators on the site, who has written multiple GAs in their first 6 months. I know of The Blue Rider from User talk:Gnomingstuff/Archive 1#The Blue Rider (Kandinsky). I reviewed the diffs above and I believe The Blue Rider selectively deleted Chao Garden's comments from the review, was repeatedly condescending towards them in the review , opened a retaliatory review, and has lied about much of this here. NicheSports (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Non-admin comment - Even without knowing either editor involved, Blue Rider's dismissive attitude and tone here (particularly the KNITer comment above) would concern me on civility grounds. To then see your diffs above doing the same is...blech. Not a great look. Porterjoh (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It is beyond me why non-involved editors who are also not administrators are allowed to comment on ANI and other noticeboards, especially when they came with such dog-pilling behaviour. The Blue Rider 01:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If people want to disregard me, or feel I shouldn't have commented as a non-admin, they're free to do so and to tell me so, although I'm not aware that I'm prevented from commenting. I shouldn't imagine my words hold much sway anyway. I object to being told I'm dogpiling though, as that would imply premeditation I don't know you from Adam and just read the diffs and your comments here and gave a view having already been surprised by your brusqueness. Since I am indeed a non-involved, non-admin, I'll leave it at that. You're welcome to come talk to me, however. Porterjoh (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Blue Rider indef for disruptive editing. Again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan is it okay to close this section ? .n⠀eandert⠀hals8 01:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe anything other than the simplest request should remain open much longer than 19 minutes, to ensure that any responses or critiques of the action can be registered. There’s no harm in leaving it open, and potential harm in hasty closure.

That said, I was in the process of reviewing this editor’s history when they were blocked, and I strongly endorse the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also endorse the block, for this personal attack on ANI even before everything else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Also endorse the block. The ad-hominems (e.g. the "Keep up the good work WP:KNITter" comment you linked, and their contention that non-admins shouldn't even bother commenting on their behavior) are not acceptable, along with their selective deletion of comments they don't like. This user has an extensive block log including a previous indef for disruptive editing. I like to AGF, but at some point enough has to be enough. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)