Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1227

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Category:Films about birds

• 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Gorgon

Zola

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)

are you seriously saying that wikipedia policies are too "western"? does the existence of chinese wikipedia mean nothing to you? ltbdl (call) 06:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

What we need is experienced editors to turn discussions to WP:VNOT WP:DUE, WP:NOT, pertinent WP:RS, and WP:LEAD -- explain those and how they apply to a particular edit. Also, when there is a [[WP:CONSENSUS]], probably not challenge a well established content consensus unless there is a significant change in the sourcing, and certainly not though edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 18 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)

  As somebody who supports this proposal, I feel qualified-ish to answer. This measure covers every page in wikipedia. I have no idea whether RK will stop making edits about birds being dinosaurs, as I am not a clairvoyant and even if I were, I feel this would be a waste of my powers. However, it is my belief that RK should stop banging on about this topic, and that he is aware that further sanctions will occur if he doesn't. I don't think we need things to be any more complicated than that. In fact, I may even have needlessly made things more complicated than they should be by introducing the topic of psychic powers.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:31, 18 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)
• Support. Though technically correct is quite obviously the best kind of correct /meme, edit-warring is not the best kind of editing. Since this is a very easy to follow topic ban that has little spillover potential -- I can't imagine Randy would propose renaming KFC to Kentucky Fried Dinosaur -- I have a relatively low bar to support. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Shouldn't that be Chicxulub Fried Dinosaur? Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I hear the dinosaurio asado is to die for... Sesquilinear (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Kentucky Fried Dinosaur: absolutely perfect. I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Technically evolutionarily correct however if we are going by evolution the humans should be referred to as apes Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 11:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Still ongoing. Mellk (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Still ongoing and still the same IP range... Mellk (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

User:The Blue Rider - deleting GA review comments and hounding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

You've done absolutely nothing wrong. Editors in good standing who are not admins, are allowed to make constructive comments in these types of discussions. If not, I would certainly be in hot water at this point! Where only administrators are allowed to edit is almost always made explicit, as far as I'm aware. Plus the toolset, but we cannot use a tool that hasn't been put in our belts! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Re-iterating CoffeeCrumbs comment, despite The Blue Rider's opinion of the matter, these fora allow for the community to partake in the discussion. Your comment was perfectly fine, and you are free to contribute to other discussions here if you so wish. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Porterjoh: Most of the people who comment at the admin notice boards are non admins. Admins are not a special class with special authority over others; we are the servants and the tools of the community. The purpose of the admin notice boards is to let admins know what the community's wishes are. We implement the community's will. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Porterjoh (talk) 10:52, 20 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)

Endorse block. Please see my comment on their user talk page and their block log. A pattern emerges. Not their first indefinite block for behavior inconsistent with compatibility with this project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Their replies post-block raise more questions if they are WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Meh. I think they are (trying to be) here, but I think they are just not compatible temperamentally -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of a reviewer at a GAN is unbelievable, and a WP:TPO violation at minimum. I am sorry that @Chao Garden had to put up with such ill behaviour. The block is justified. As a sidenote, if @Chao Garden requires a GAN review in the future, my talk page is always open for such a request. 11WB (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Permanent ban for an unregistered user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While reviewing the edit history of the Wikipedia page below, I noticed that user "Singasigmaskibdiboi" added a large amount of nonsensical content and then reverted the page about a minute later: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sv%C3%A4t%C3%BD_Jur&diff=1359211049&oldid=1359210978 Could an administrator please review this behavior and consider appropriate action, including a possible indefinite block of the account (or associated IP address)? Thank you for your time and assistance.Tbartovic (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This user has been warned and has not edited since, which was a week ago. If they continue you can report them at WP:AIV which is the correct place for such reports. CoconutOctopus talk 10:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

  This is a very intermittent editor, so I doubt we’ll get a response soon. So far, the disruption has been to draftspace and limited to a single draft, so not a big deal. To prevent things from getting worse when no one is watching, I’ll block them from articles and from moving files (to ensure that doesn’t sneak into mainspace). That won’t prevent them from working more on the article and will allow us to require a good answer before they do something we might regret. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of 193.218.138.76 threatening sapphaline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today, ~2026-36087-38 (talk · contribs) replied to a comment by user sapphaline (talk · contribs) on BTDigg's talk page with a threat in Russian (machine translated):

Where have you been for the past month? I was getting fed up with waiting for you; I thought I’d kicked you out for good—looks like I’ll have to put in a bit more effort.

This user's only other contribution was marking the LTA page on 193.218.138.76 as inactive. Based on this user's threat towards sapphaline, and their edit to the LTA page, I believe this to be a sockpuppet of 193.218.138.76 which is being used to continue their harassment of sapphaline. --In solidarity Iam-py-test (talk, she/her) 20:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for ban evasion. Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. In solidarity Iam-py-test (talk, she/her) 22:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over-explaining short description, flags violating MOS, BRD behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

User:RudraaC (now User:Renamed user 94c4f4bc1639a5259dec005466a346bc) started over-explain short descriptions in contrary to standard conventions in late April and were reverted and notified of (see User talk:Renamed user 94c4f4bc1639a5259dec005466a346bc#New message to RudraaC). The also created a new account User:Rudraaac and socked and were reported to SPI and agreed to only use the latter account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudraaac/Archive#19 May 2026).

This month they once-again started to over-explain short descriptions in contrary to standard conventions; as well as adding flags at places contrary to MOS:FLAG. After cleaning-up, I've left them a message 2 days ago (see User talk:Rudraaac#c-Vestrian24Bio-20260616103100-June 2026). But they ignored it as well and went on disrupting a dozen more pages today...

• Renamed user 94c4f4bc1639a5259dec005466a346bc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rudraaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vestrian24Bio 10:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Since they have abused the vanishing process, I have relinked the account by reverting the rename. It is RudraaC again. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And I’ve pblocked from Articles, with an invitation to reply to this issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying things like I also added flags for sports persons which according to me is the right thing in an unblock request even after being blocked in part due to it, is really concerning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems they have been sealioning three other users with their whining about declined unblocks. Borgenland (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi has now put in place an indefinite block due to Rudraaac's continued badgering of others on this issue, over four different editors' talk pages. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger

 – — Knightoftheswords 10:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Larry Sanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Post-move discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was not aware that the move had consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't. 4 people participated in the discussion and none of them have particularly clear votes (e.g. "yes" in bold). jolielover♥talk 10:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well except for sapphaline, who opposed. Still, no consensus. jolielover♥talk 10:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was moved BOLDLY by @Knightoftheswords281. Unorthodox, but yes, the discussion hadn't been given time to complete... 11WB (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Unorthodox" is not how I would put it. "Uncool" is I how I would put it. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The page was large enough that moving it to a different page was actually necessary. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

and it was reverted here once. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to edit war over the location of a massive ongoing conversation. Morwen (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was reverted once by @Jolielover who requested a reason be given. Which I then provided. That is not an edit war. 11WB (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Technicaly 3RR is not a bright line. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But that's your opinion. jolielover♥talk 10:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not particularly excited by the idea of ANI subpages for individual users, but I'll admit this point of process isn't really my biggest priority right now. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I proposed it formally as being bold would have caused exactly this. But it's done now and has been challenged at MfD, so a consensus will form... just in the wrong order. 11WB (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The shit thing about moving to a subpage is that there’s no longer a link to the most recent comment. FWIW I don’t think this was necessary Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also meant that anyone subscribed to the discussion is now no longer receiving notifications from replies, nor will they have the new page on their watchlists.

While I appreciate the boldness (and the fact that ANI is now loading much faster on my phone...), I think a bit more planning wouldn't have gone amiss. In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to take part of the responsibility for this. It should resolve itself without much issue. (Maybe a WP:HISTMERGE is possible somehow?) 11WB (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Subscriptions can be preserved by keeping the initial heading and comment (in particulr, the signature) intact. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why the page was moved. Actually it a section of the ANI. So why was this section moved? Something like this seems to create a mixed up or confusing situation. I wound up on the MFD page for Sanger's proposed project. Not the ANI thread. This needs to fixed. It has a significant amount of participation. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger. It is probably best to concentrate discussion there. CMD (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean there are two discussions going on at the same time? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully not, further discussion about the move should ideally go on the MFD page so this doesn't become an incomprehensible sprawling mess - especially since that was the idea behind the move in the first place. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet:. OK thanks very much. I see now, what happened. In light of what you just wrote it makes sense. I will just go with the flow here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What a clusterfuck. In the future, please let administrators administer the administrators' noticeboard. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What voorts said. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite. This is a situation that ought to be handled with the utmost of probity. Seat-of-the-pants page moves don't fly. Ravenswing 13:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, that I agree with voorts, Girth, and Ravenswing. I was thinking, there is a process that takes place and that should have been allowed to happen. This is certainly not the first thread that had a large amount of participation, or other contingencies, in the history of ANI---14:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC) --Steve Quinn (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object to anyone who is not an admin messing with the structure of ANI, and to the fact that I just happened by accident to find out that I won't be notified about new comments in a discussion I am following. I request that someone who is an admin undo this change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf of @Knightoftheswords281. The proposal I opened should have been left to an admin to close. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't apologize on behalf of anyone you don't represent.

You could apologize for having reverted the revert that would have stopped what is currently happening, for you already were involved in nominating the move. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It likely would have been reverted anyway (), I understand that this was handled poorly however, and I own my part in it. I'm happy to apologise for that, of course. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. At some point we're going to have to codify that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So now we're having a discussion on a separate page about whether the discussion should be on a separate page? 😂 How is this anybody's idea of "better"? Levivich (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

does my ivote to indef Sanger still hold? I'm so confuseled. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 17:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: AKA Walter not a grumpy old man Ego. Yes, your Ivote is on the appropriate page - I found the ivote at 12:24, 20 June 2026. I think searching through the edit history of the page to find the diff will be too much work for me. However, you can use the "Find" function in your browser to find good ol' Walter on this page: . Since you are really Roxy the dog, I want to let you know that I have always wanted to say Woof! Woof! to you. I'm probably not the first, but there it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh good. I'm hoping that a panel close of all this Sanger related nonsense will ultimately ensue, as I dont think we have an Admin with the stones to do it alone. Perhaps one will raise their head above the ballustrade/um/battlements, but I'm not holding my breath. I have to express my amazement at the cheek of somebody who has only made two constructive edits since they were sacked from being co-founder walking roughshod through our well established policy and guideline as if it didn't affect them, only us. Send him away please, asap. Thanks. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 19:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Walter, I totally agree about Sanger. Walking rough-shod over policy, guidelines and community without any regard for the very many editors doing fine work on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As if the mess weren't confusing enough already with all the walls-of-text, the bane of easy to follow discussion. A total clusterfuck. Carlstak (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Is it sabotage? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin MSGJ has indefinitely blocked User:Larry Sanger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MSGJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indefinitely blocked Larry Sanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and not even left a talk page notice on Sanger's talk. What is going on? Why is this still split off of WP:ANI so fewer people can see it? 15:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

not even left a talk page notice on Sanger's talk is not true. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Completely inadequate. In such an extraordinary situation, a handful of words on a user page with no closing summary, no explanation beyond "enacting consensus", no effort to weigh various arguments or outcomes... is exceptionally poor judgment. I'm not disputing (or endorsing) the outcome, but if ever there was a case that needed some extra communicative care and attention for the good of the project, this is it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

what an enormous clusterfuck this has been. From the unchecked soapboxing to the procedural dysfunction, all we've really done here is give credence to Larry's WP:POINT Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Echoing @Rhododendrites. MSGJ characterized it as a block, not a ban. Even if it's a block, there's still no closing summary and failed to demonstrate their evaluation of supporting and opposing arguments to arrive at a consensus. If there is one way to really muddy the waters of the CBAN, this is it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the amount of text already used by all parties involved, including Sanger, succinct was probably the way to go, imo.

And re: blocking before a close, that's not unreasonable. If there's a strong enough consensus, an admin can block on their own authority and the currently-expressed consensus while the community finalizes things. If the community decides that's not correct for the final action, they can say so, and the block log will indicate the final decision. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Leaving my 2c here that an admin unilaterally blocking an editor during a cban discussion -- absent some true emergency reason like death threats -- is unreasonable. It's also unreasonable to expect editors to opine a second time, on the propriety of the unilateral block in addition to the cban. It's not respectful of people's time to expect them to come back and vote again. We have a procedure (WP:CBAN), admins should just follow the procedure. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting Malicious Updating of Information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

They've moved onto Special:Contributions/~2026-35347-68, been reverted several more times and the page has now been protected. I gave them an edit warring warning to cover things, but hopefully that's put an end to it for now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:~2026-36124-12 seems to be creating antisemetic edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am unsure what an ANI topic requires or if I am doing the right action in this situation, so please inform me if I'm doing something wrong.

I noticed ~2026-36124-12 (talk · contribs) making on edit on Bank where they wrote "Banks around the world are owned by the entire Jewish population." (Special:Diff/1360355661) which I quickly reverted.

I looked at their contributions and they had two other edits that were both on Citibank where they wrote the CEO was Jewish and those were already reverted because there was no source provided (Special:Diff/1360354978 & Special:Diff/1360355336).

The first edit I linked seemed to be spreading beliefs of international Jewish conspiracies, and the other two present to me as vandalizing another article in an effort to support that antisemitic conspiracy.

Again, I am unsure if this is the correct course of action because I am a fairly new editor, but I would rather be overly cautious when it comes to this issue. Thank you for your time. WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Stuff like this can go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism per Wikipedia:Zero tolerance. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a better place for any commoner vandalism that remotely approaches RD2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Should I just recreate this post there then? WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just write * {{vandal|~2026-36124-12}} <reason> ~~~~ at the bottom of the page. Keep the reason short, something like "Vandalism-only account" – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it makes sense that there would be a separate page for less complicated issues. Thank you so much for informing me of this! WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course =) I believe there is nothing more to do here. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:CommanderF1 — request for review of possible disruptive use of Wikipedia processes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting administrator review of a pattern of editing activity by CommanderF1. My concern is not the volume of edits itself, but repeated use of maintenance processes where the basis appears unclear.

Examples: [] — deletion nomination reason [] — speedy deletion log for multiple schools on the same day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiabulls — deleted relevant section on Regulatory actions and controversies

I would appreciate review of whether these actions comply with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35890-56 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sure this is WP:REVENGE by SPA editor: User:Amitnageswar11 who has also nominated this article in revenge. He is upset because I nominated his article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurangi_Vijayshrie_Nagraj) on AFD. He states You wasted my entire one month's hard work by posting my article in deletion. Now I have seen your article, Alexandar Soundarrajan you have more weeks than my article so why is this your live, I am also starting deletion now also this. Check this. If i am not wrong these (Amitnageswar11 and ip) are the part of this sock series: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakmarsaify. CommanderF1 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Another TA (who may or may not be the original poster) replied here with some very abusive comments in Hindi, which I have removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's ironic that he's a paid editor himself, yet he tries to hide it by targeting and deleting other people's articles without any legitimate reason. Amitnageswar11 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Amitnageswar11, what's your previous account? Zero chance this is your first account and feels like a CU needs to check here. The tit-for-tat AFD nominations are quite obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser needed The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are some CU observations, and if another CU wants to pile in, be my guest. The OP is a logged-out user with some years experience and apparently several accounts. I (or someone else) will deal with that separately - I see no direct relevant connection at this time. The abusive TA which sometimes appears in this thread is a banned user. None of the extant users in this thread appear to be Alakmarsaify, but they are present in the general topic areas (and mostly blocked). I think the best way to describe Amitnageswar11 is that they have yet to be placed. Does that help? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to add to that, I do now see some interaction between CommanderF1 and the OP TA's accounts, unrelated to the actor scene. Other comments stand. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And now, I've only gone and blocked a load of people in this thread. I don't see much more to do here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Ravensfire (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP(s)

• ~2026-32261-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been disruptively editing a large number of music articles. Particularly, they pipe Chad Hugo's name to "Charles Hugo", but that is not the proper credit. (, compare with credit here; , compare with credit here) They have also been adding improper credits for other songs (, compare with credit here), adding incorrect categories (--it is a 1999 song, not a 2000 song), and arbitrarily putting categories out of alphabetical order () Though some edits they made have been helpful, they have been warned multiple times about their disruptive editing, and they are not listening. They are also abusing multiple temporary accounts: they are beyond any reasonable doubt ~2026-28000-33, who also went through Chad Hugo-related articles to change his name to "Charles". ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that the two accounts are linked, but it is not abuse - temporary accounts are designed to expire, that's just how they work. They can be abused to evade scrutiny, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that being the case here.

There are definitely a worrying number of templated warnings, but I want to quickly point out that nobody has taken the time to explain why there is a problem with the credits until very recently - if I was a new editor, this isn't very clear but this would make sense to me.

This isn't a validation or dismissal of the many other issues with their editing, but sometimes it's too easy to slap a template on a Talk page and call it a day. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by LocalF15

This user LocalF15 reverted my well-sourced edit, which added numerical data to improve the article, without giving any solid reason. And ignored my invitation to discuss on the talk page, instead engaging in edit-warring with other editors and got blocked . I think this pattern of behavior is preventing the article from being improved and falls under Disruptive editing. This user has already received a warning for same behavior in the past.

Revision as of 03:45, 18 June 2026

Revision as of 15:54, 18 June 2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthsvader08 (talk • contribs)

Yes, LocalF15 has been blocked for edit warring. If they start up again, further sanctions might be required, but for now this seems to have been dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My complaint was about disruptive editing, i believe repeatedly reverting edits across multiple articles without discussing them on the talk page may fall under 'disruptive editing'. Darthsvader08 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

They were blocked for edit warring which is a form of disruptive editing. Sanctioning them again once the block expired because they participated in two different types of disruption before the block would be punitive and excessive.

Going forwards, you can report any further edit warring to WP:AN3 or come back here if it's another form of disruption. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Especially considering you too just got blocked for edit warring last month although you do seem to have partly learnt your lesson and only made one revert before heading to the talk page. Hopefully LocalF15 finally learns their lesson too and uses the talk page a lot more and reverts a lot less but if they don't that can be dealt with as it normally is. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

User using misleading edit summaries

Stately2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As one may assume from the title, I've just recently come across this user who has been using misleading edit summaries across many of their edits. This editor has been editing for just about a year now (since June 24 of last year) and I don't know if it's been like this from the start or not, but many of their edits appear to be using completely misleading edit summaries. The main two I've recently encountered is this edit on America's Got Talent season 21 simply saying, "states" (does not appear to be relevant to the actual edit whatsoever) as well as this edit on an AGT template saying, "team" (again, not quite sure what that exactly means regarding this edit]. Even then just going through a few others:

• Not sure what this has to do with 'awards'
• This edit saying 'pilot' is changing a whole bunch of unrelated thing from the actual edit summary
• This edit does a whole lot of changes to the article in question, but simply saying, 'school' is not very helpful at all

Even after attempting to warn them regarding this on their talk page, they simply removed it saying, "CS1"- which the only relevancy I can see from that edit summary is the previous thread on their talk page.

Again, not quite sure how long this has been going on for, or if it is possibly for them to start using actual edit summaries, but as far as I'm currently seeing, continuing on with these kinds of edit summaries is just going to be plainly disruptive. Magitroopa (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking more of a look, this appears to have been ongoing from the start of their editing ('Thanksgiving'?...), and it appears I am not the first editor to raise concern over this edit summary issue, as @Magnolia677 raised concern over this edit (see here as well as Talk:Poteau, Oklahoma#Vague edit summary), and unfortunately, the 'discussion' at User talk:Magnolia677/Archive 33#Hi back makes me worry this may actually be more of a WP:NOTHERE issue regarding Stately. Just also came upon User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 21#Rose (singer) showing more issue(s?) (@Paper9oll). Magitroopa (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Stately2 is now edit warring on Template:America's Got Talent as well, with their 'main'(?) reverting reason being, "I don't know where you think you have this authority." If this user is now going to edit war as well with their behavior already being subject to this ANI, I would advise a block occurring sooner than later. Magitroopa (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And now in the currently-ongoing discussion on my talk page at User talk:Magitroopa#Not replying?, Stately is once again throwing the blame at everyone else but themselves, just like previously done in the above linked discussions with Magnolia677 and Paper9oll. It is becoming very apparent that Stately is WP:NOTHERE at this point and is much more interesting in battlegrounding any users who question/revert their edits. Magitroopa (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You're also participating in the edit war, they have three reverts and you have four on that page. It looks like they might have wanted to get you into trouble and you unfortunately let it happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

User Javext - Talk:Portuguese conquest of Ceuta

Javext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has accused me twice of vandalism and editing in bad faith, and has generally been needlessly aggressive in their language and approach.

I apologise for raising this incident which I'd normally ignore, since they're a relatively new editor with limited experience, but the individual specifically stated they didn't care if they were reported. I think this sort of attitude needs to be addressed early. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I head to dig through the history a bit since there aren't any diffs in your report - is it this discussion and this comment? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the wikipedia policy is to assume good faith, but when it comes to cases like this, it’s genuinely impossible to assume that. Your recent edits on that article were probably the most disruptive and unconstructive edits I have ever seen under the banner of good faith and trying to improve the page. You disregarded other editor’s opinion and tried forcibly to assert your edits by submitting it to the Military History Group. When it comes to such big edits like these, you should first resort to explaining them in the talk page and reach a consensus with the users, which you didn’t. You acted authoritarian, like your susperior to everyone else.

With a behaviour like this, I cannot assume that you were acting under good faith and I think that you have other motives since there are hundreds if not thousands of other less relevant subjects, with more information on the page and you don’t care about those. On a side note I also must mention that you went to a user’s page who disagreed with you, namely Wareno, and threatened him stating that his block ban was recently removed. What were you trying to imply? Why do you have to act so authoritarian, just because others rightly criticize your disruptive edits? No one can go against you? Javext (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like this is a content dispute that's gotten a little out of hand. Everyone involved needs to take a few steps back, then a deep breath before doing anything further. I've always said that ANI should be a last resort in disputes, for use when other, less public forms of dispute resolution have failed (excepting urgent & severe cars OFC).

• @Robinvp11, shouting isn't a good way to get other editors to see and understand your point of view. Similarly, I think this ANI was a little premature & other dispute resolution methods may have been more suitable. I also feel that this was rather unnecessary; they don't need reminding of a previous block for edit warring if they're not doing anything that would necessitate further sanctions. Every blocked editor deserves a fresh start once their block has ended.
• @Javext, vandalism has a very specific meaning at Wikipedia; if someone's edits aren't clear vandalism then it can be considered to be a personal attack. Please don't do that again, your comments weren't acceptable no matter how strongly you feel. The default position at Wikipedia is to assume good faith but you've gone straight on the attack - this is a community project and you absolutely cannot approach disputes in such an aggressive manner, especially if it's only over the good-faith removal of text in an article. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and fix problems proactively - it's almost impossible for one person to break a Wikipedia article, everything is in the edit history so it's pretty easy to fix things if needs be.

Honestly, I see editors on that Talk page who care a lot about the article and the subject it covers - that's a great place to start from. I'm really hoping that you've all just had a bit of a hiccup on the way after running at the subject full-tilt, because you care so much.

Please remember one thing, no matter what happens next: You both want the article to be at its best, but have differing views on how to achieve that. That's a strength that you can both use, if you are smart about it. It's not a bad thing at all.

Working together from opposite sides can often be the best way to make sure things don't go too far in one direction. But in order to do that, you both need to allow the other editor some slack to work with.

Go back to the Talk page and look over the changes, section by section. Search for reasons to accept the other person's view, before thinking about reasons to reject it. If there are no good reasons to accept a proposal, at least you've given it an honest try. Explain what you've thought about and why you made your decision, remember that other editors may be coming into the discussion cold so be clear and concise when you write - I find it helpful to imagine that my boss will read it later, that way I'll never fly off the handle!

Treat this as a new start - you've both just met and are talking about the article for the first time. It might help to ignore the previous discussion, to just pretend it didn't happen and start afresh. That's up to you both.

If you can both talk to each other calmly and clearly, you'll reach a true consensus and create an article to be proud of. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, since I missed this earlier (apologies) - You acted authoritarian, like your susperior to everyone else. With a behaviour like this, I cannot assume that you were acting under good faith and I think that you have other motives is also unacceptable.

Please never question another editor's motives like that unless you have very clear reason and solid justification to do so. If you carry on like this, administrators may feel the need to take action and I'm sure that's the last thing you want to happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Return to potentially POINTy editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Dncmartins was recently the subject of another AN/I thread after starting AfD's for a large swath of articles, all comparison articles, after arguing strongly for Keep in WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. There was no consensus to impose any sanctions or warnings, partially as there seemed to be consensus they were now aware that their conduct appeared pointy to some editors.

Despite that, they have returned to the exact same pattern of editing (with some of the same copied messages). In the intervening month, they've created six new AfDs and added WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH templates to 165 articles.

Given

• their (in the scheme of things, very recent) arguments in WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands
• this recent swath of unchanged editing in this area after discussion with editors that it may be disruptive
• their tone in a recent AfD:

For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed.

I personally believe this to be editing strictly for the WP:POINT that Comparison of smartphone brands should not have been deleted.

Whether it's sanctions, a stronger warning, or something else, I think something should be done to get them to reconsider this. If this truly isn't WP:POINTY, they should slow down and work on improving this area without creating disruption.

Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins You need to be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies in reverse too. "Another article like this one was deleted" is not a valid argument for deletion, as it says on that page. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As the originator of the previous thread, I find it entirely unsurprising that we are here again after no action was taken that time. The latest AfD nominations are terse and identical. It is clear that Dncmartins just wants as many "Comparison of" articles deleted as possible in retaliation for their favourite one being deleted. There is no indication of careful selection. This is disruptive. I think we need a topic ban from AfD and from "Comparison of" articles at an absolute minimum but I would also strongly question whether that is sufficient. Somebody holding a grudge over this length of time really is not an asset to the encyclopaedia. Just check out their contribution history. They aren't even doing anything else at all now. It is all "Comparison of" articles and everything this year seems geared towards these low effort, borderline indiscriminate, AfDs. Even when tagging for cleanup their edit summaries make it clear that this is merely intended as a prelude to an AfD (e.g. diff). This indicates that there could be many more such low effort AfDs coming soon if not stopped.

It might be legitimate to believe that all "Comparison of" articles should be deleted and to start a centralised discussion about that. Starting an unnecessary number of individual low effort AfDs is unacceptable. Copypasting near identical replies into each, all referencing the one deletion that they are sulking about is unacceptable (e.g. this and this). Given that the previous trip to ANI has done nothing to prompt better behaviour, I think we need an indef and to speedy close all their AfDs.

I also think that the articles already deleted should be given a quick review. If there was a genuine considered consensus to delete then that's fair enough but if any were deleted with only minimal participation or only cursory consideration then maybe those should be overturned or reviewed more carefully. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would personally oppose an indef - with no other conduct issues or escalation of this one issue past a previous no-sanctions AN/I I'm not convinced they're WP:NOTHERE. The length of time they've been editing this way is only a couple months. I think I would support a TBAN for AfD or for an even more narrowly scoped topic.

I'll do a review of the previous AfDs. I recall seeing a couple with a pretty good amount of people weighing in and reaching a good consensus. For the record, I personally think that many of these comparison articles should be deleted. I'm concerned about the disruption of bringing so many of these so quickly for a WP:POINT. Eyesinthefire (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

My overall view is that the existing consensus reached in the closed AfDs (the 7 AfDs started on March 8th) is well-discussed.

Review of closed AfDs

From this search: WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of version-control software

Result was no consensus - discussion was a bit messy but with a good amount of participants, there were some claims of OR, some people mentioned not finding OR - closing admin suggested centralized discussion

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of server-side web frameworks

Result was no consensus - discussion was short and cut off by mentions of first AN/I thread

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP client software

Result was delete - discussion was fairly short. I don't think I agree with some of the claims around OR, but nobody was able to articulate a good non-procedural keep. I would personally have voted delete per WP:GNG.

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP server software packages

Result was delete - discussion was extensive, with multiple OR and sourcing problems.

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

Result was merge to List of Usenet newsreaders - fairly short discussion, but no non-procedural keeps

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Subversion clients

Result was delete - ditto discussion notes above

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_iPod_file_managers

Result was delete - ditto above

I don't think a procedural and/or speedy keep is required for any of the active AfDs, they all have fairly active discussion. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

a couple quotes I found while doing this full review that were not brought up in the last AN/I which I think point to this being a WP:POINT:

!!!

most of the other participation of Dncmartins in these threads has been to paste in the same few clips about this article with no rationale or how it applies to the article in question, which to me points to not actually caring about the AfD they're trying to do. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

upon thinking it over more, I would prefer to support a topic ban from deletion at minimum and would not oppose an indefinite block. Eyesinthefire (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins: at the bare minimum, you need to immediately start citing exactly how your nominations accord with deletion policy. You seem to have become obsessed with some random essay, and that's not going to fly. Also, if you're threatening to overload AfD with a zillion copy-pasted nominations made by a bot, you should expect to get blocked pretty quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the solution is obvious. We're not talking block-worthy behavior, yet. But all that was proposed in the last ANI thread was a tban from deletion. That's the remedy we should consider now. I see the points the Oppose voters made, but plainly Dncmartins was given too much rope. Ravenswing 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support a strongly worded warning, making it evident that this pointy-ness is not allowed, and they are at the end of their rope, balancing on the edge of the chair. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 01:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Would also support a tban from deletion per Ravenswing. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 02:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from deletion at a minimum, but I'm honestly not sure why we're not INDEFFing. There's no indication this editor is a productive contributor and their disruption just moves. Star Mississippi 11:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  That they continue to open AfDs and have begun PRODding when there's broad disagreement with their actions shows to me that they're here in bad faith. I'm leaning more INDEF than TB. If these articles need to go, someone else can assess with far less drama. Star Mississippi 00:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  In their defence this discussion was opened two weeks ago and they have yet to receive a sanction - they could have exhausted a number of temporary bans in this amount a of time. Orange sticker (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:POINTY is about disruptive behaviour. Nominating articles for deletion that are nearly always reaching consensus for deletion seems a positive contribution to me. Presuming someone's motive isn't WP:AGF and if the volume of AfDs is problematic you could try to ask them to slow down, but I don't see any attempt to address this before coming here. They've even asked a mod about starting a centralised discussion about these pages. Orange sticker (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The attempt to address this before coming here was the previous AN/I, in which they were made aware this pace was being seen as disruptive.

My view of their motive is based heavily on their return to this pattern of editing after being made aware in a very active discussion, as well as several comments they made during the AfDs. I don't think that's presumptious. Eyesinthefire (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The previous ANI concluded there was no evidence of disruptive editing and no need for any sanctions, and the closing administer asked editors not to be so quick to ask for them. The only disruptive editing I'm seeing is from editors assuming bad faith in the AfDs and not assessing the articles on their own merit. Orange sticker (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I assumed a lot of good faith reading through these AfDs and edit history, and was eventually convinced by the pattterns and comments that it was not good faith editing.

I will say I disagree with some of the other editors trying to procedurally close these AfDs. Eyesinthefire (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

So if you think that the AfDs should stand, what is your problem here? Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

They're still disruptive for a WP:POINT, as are Dncmartins' mass edits to other comparison articles. Despite that, I don't think procedurally closing them is neccesary. Eyesinthefire (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think they're all productive edits done in good faith, and the vast majority of nominations for deletion I agree with. If Dncmartins is blocked or tbanned I'd be inclined to carry on nominating and adding templates. Seeing as I have no dog in this fight, I wouldn't be proving a point but trying to improve Wikipedia. Would I be considered disruptive by doing this? Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I don't agree that this is a problematic situation. The article that they created was deleted for reasons which generally also apply to articles they subsequently nominated for deletion. The AfDs have been well-attended and attracted reasonable arguments on both sides. A substantial number ended in delete; those that didn't were mostly disrupted with criticism of the nominator rather than engaging in whether the article was suitable for inclusion. The previous ANI was closed with an appeal by the closer to stop jumping on editors with calls for bans and blocks and noted that "There is no consensus to impose a topic ban. There's no direct evidence that Dncmartins was acting with disruptive intent." Nothing has changed since then and the advice from the closer has clearly fallen on deaf ears. Six AfDs is not a number which will overwhelm the AfD process. Frankly, I think editors trying to shut down the AfDs without considering the merits of the nomination and the suitability of the articles to be rather more disruptive and in bad faith. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• TBAN from deletion After reading the 11 AfDs they posted March 8, I believe they are not exercising due diligence in selecting articles and appropriate effort in posting the discussions. Roughly half the discussions are in the "keep" camp, it appears (many have not closed yet). But that's not the big problem. The main problem is that the delete rationales are WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia without any explanation as to why that particular article has original research. Each nomination should at least point to examples or explain the problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of these articles that they are AfDing are, indeed, irretrievable crap (I mean, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 3D printers (2nd nomination)). Whilst their nomination rationales (WP:OR? I think not) are nonsense, articles like this don't need to exist. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think it is worth a broader discussion about whether we should simply forbid "comparison of" articles entirely. The whole concept seems somewhat unencyclopedic, honestly. I wouldn't expect to crack open an old Britannica and find an article comparing models of typewriters or something. Athanelar (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   Courtesy link: WP:VPR § Banning product comparison articles Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN from deletion, but keep AFDs - As I said in the previous ANI case, while these nominations were somewhat valid, it does not excuse the fact that these nominations were made to demonstrate an WP:POINT. Even after the initial warning from the last ANI, the user still tagged all of the 100+ comparison articles and made more AFDs, demonstrating literally the first example in that policy. I have also asked the user in one of the AFDs to make a RfC in WP:VP instead of making pointless AfDs, but it seems like the user is ignoring the message and decided to use the same response as that was that brought us here previously, so these nominations are most certainly made out of spite. (Thankfully, somebody else did just that). EvanTech10 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions It's illogical if not vindictive to sanction someone for nominating AfDs that consensus agrees are worthwhile, but because of a presumed motivation. Barely any attempt has been made outside of ANI to work with the editor on their editing patterns, which aren't problematic anyway. If nominating something for deletion with a very brief rationale is a so great a problem then a lot of editors would need hauling over the coals. Orange sticker (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions for productive good-faith edits of six AfDs in a month. How is this a "chronic, intractable behavioural problem"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The user also tagged all the comparison articles with cleanup tags, like 100+ or so articles. Check his contributions. Also he was using the same copy and pasted reply in relation to his prior AfD. I’ve also suggested the user to create a village pump RfC instead of nominating the articles for deletion but it seems like the user isn’t responding. I just left the user a message to participate in the RfC above so we can have productive discussion on the topic of these articles. EvanTech10 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Excellent work by him. Should I nominate e.g. Comparison of GUI testing tools for deletion, or wait until he gets around to it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you have a valid reason and are willing to participate in a productive discussion, you should absolutely do that. The problem with Dncmartins is that he is not putting a lot of effort into these AfDs (especially with the copy-and-paste replies and vague rationale) and is doing so just because his article was deleted to prove a WP:POINT (a Wikipedia behavioral guideline). EvanTech10 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Being right isn't enough" EvanTech10 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please read WP:POINT's last line and get back to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Devils advocate/genuine question - would AFD's be counted as "saying" or "actually doing" - it's almost in the middle? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you notice the edit summaries on those taggings? They all say "Starting deletion process...". It is clear that this is not intended to prompt improvements to those articles. This is just a prelude to another large batch of disruptive, low effort AfDs which will be coming down the pipeline soon, if not prevented. It is putting on a (half-hearted) show of due diligence instead of actually doing due diligence. It is clear that this is disruptively motivated, as retaliation. I know that a lot of "Comparison of" articles are poor, and some of them might be better off deleted, but allowing a guy with a grudge to bulldoze through them all indiscriminately, good, bad and ugly alike, is the worst possible way to handle it. Starting a centralised discussion, as Athanelar has, is the legitimate way to do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please explicity state what is disruptive about this pattern of editing? There's no rule saying which is the correct way to do things, we can have both a centralised discussion and get on with deleting the bad articles, in fact having both processes run simultaneously is arguably beneficial. Orange sticker (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Spite is a powerful motivator it seems. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  See the degree to which Dncmartins copy-pastes the same I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed as opposed to giving rationales at all related to the article, as well as:

  - That the point of this discussion. Wikipedia needs to agree on wether it is governed by inconsistent opinions or consistent policies.

  - [...] because it is a Wikipedia policy that this kind or articles are not allowed and must be deleted. Wikipedia deletion policy must be consistent or it will be a joke and eaten up by new alternatives like Grokipedia.

  Even if the AfDs themselves are good to keep or should be opened separately from this (I personally think many of these AfDs are overdue and might open some myself), the (to my view, after reviewing their editing since that first AfD they tried to keep) editing in putting them together is not in productive good-faith. Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering why there’s been so many comparison articles at AfD lately. Now I know more about the situation, I would support a TBAN on AfD at minimum. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 22:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN - the comments highlighted above by Eyesinthefire make it abundantly clear that Dcnmartins is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, irrespective of whether the AfDs end up deleting bad articles. Katzrockso (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be a lot of ABF in this thread, with several editors assuming that Dnc is nominating articles to make a point. I see someone who listened to the arguments put forward at WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands, and realised they had been wrong there. ~2026-19405-38 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions: Given that we've established that many of these articles should be deleted via the normal AfD process, I am a very tough sell for the argument that these nominations are out-of-line. These articles are filled with original research and are being nominated at roughly a rate of one article per day, which takes out the baseless claim that WP: BEFORE is not being followed. It is so disappointing to see that we are back at ANI just because a group of individuals personally disagree with the editing style of another user; this user's behavior is well within bounds of Wikipedia policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

which takes out the baseless claim that WP: BEFORE is not being followed - could you expand on this? I don't think any of the people worried about WP:BEFORE are because of the pace, but because of the lack of any sort of justification in lieu of copy pasting the same couple verbatim arguments. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The justification that an article contains WP: OR and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia (drawing on language from WP: DELREASON) is complete and self-contained. The truth of the matter is that most articles violate one of a small handful of policies, and there's only so many ways to say "The entire article consists of WP: OR" or "Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources from a WP: BEFORE". I would guess that this is not obvious to most people unless they've actually gone through the process of nominating several articles for deletion. So what if the rationales are copy-pasted? If the argument is true, then I don't see any problem. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

HyperAccelerated, if the articles DID have orginal research, they should have a better explnation than the one given at every single AfD he opened. WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopedia is not a good reason, being pretty vauge and unspecific. Thelunamoon (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOT are both valid rationales for deletion. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

When evidence is presented that the page under discussion is contrary to those policies. A vague wave towards a deletion reason is at best a waste of time and at worst disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How is the reason given at the AfDs vaild? Please le valyn, give a reason better then your comment below. Thelunamoon (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. It's implied that the article consists entirely or almost entirely of original research if it's being nominated for deletion (rather than being resolved through normal editing). That is a specific reason for an article to be deleted. WP: AFDHOWTO actually discourages long rationales for AfDs, suggesting that they generally be kept to under 150 words. The bar for misbehavior is "WP: BEFORE was willfully and systematically ignored". It is not "I personally dislike these nominations because {the rationale uses too few words, I think the rationales are wrong, etc.}". HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a WP:BEFORE at all. There is barely any evidence they'd read more than the article title. That's absolutely into disruptive nomination territory. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that many of the nominations have actually ended with the article getting deleted, I am inclined to believe that the nominator is doing the right thing here. You are free to personally disagree with the outcome of the AfDs, but the notion that there is "no evidence of a WP:BEFORE" makes a stronger claim about competence and/or intent that is simply not true. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline (Essay, not policy)

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

I think most people expect some amount of how, not just what. CommonsKiwi (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with CommonsKiwi. All reasons should be specific and reasonable not vauge and questionable. I personaly think that Dncmartins is meating somehow, with all of these editors defending him for some reason, but lets not get into accuations, it's not nessesary. Thelunamoon (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You've made 5 comments on this discussion after a grand total of 1 mainspace edit. But sure, it is the other guy we should suspect of socking. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I shall not perticipate in this thread any longer. Thelunamoon (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to TBAN someone based off of one paragraph in an essay. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that. CommonsKiwi (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You quoted an essay implying that these nominations are flawed, then immediately said "nobody is saying that" when called out on it. This is a waste of everyone's time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should TBAN someone based on one paragraph in an essay. The My main argument for sanctions is about how they have, or more accurately haven't, engaged with or responded to past concerns from other editors.

Frankly, this feels like a bad faith interpretation of my reply. Thelunamoon stated 'WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopedia' is not a good reason, being pretty vauge and unspecific, which you creatively reinterpreted as "I personally dislike these nominations because {the rationale uses too few words, I think the rationales are wrong, etc.}". I was pointing out the general consensus that short rationales that vaguely gesture at policy are bad. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there is only one unambiguous interpretation of a citation of an essay in a discussion where several people are attempting to get a user TBANned. The rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with my original points. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose t-ban, supportish warn, maybe give them something like 'please stay away from AfD for now to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to gain more experience in what is notable',my reasoning is similar to Orange sticker's.~2026-22071-94 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If we cannot come to a consensus for a TBAN/block, I would alternatively support a strongly worded warning talking about how some editors find it pointy and referring to the deletion process/guidelines, and if the user keeps on making low effort AfDs without meaningful discussion after this point, consider a block. EvanTech10 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The thread wasn't closed yet so I'm unarchiving this thread EvanTech10 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: It seems like Dncmartins is still making PRODs/AfDs on even more comparison articles as of today. Nothing has changed and the user is still sticking with the same reasoning, even after we told them to discuss their opinion in the RfC instead of making more nominations. EvanTech10 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that, despite this matter not being resolved either here or at the Village Pump, Dncmartins is still making exactly the same sorts of AfD. I think this has to lead to an indef now. There is no reaching them. Let other people, who are willing to engage with our policies seriously, pick up the mantle of sorting out which of these articles are valid and which are not. This is just creating chaos. Yes, I still think this is motivated by retaliation but I also think that an indef would be justified even if this was all done in good faith. Dncmartins has been advised to stop and engage with the process several times by multiple people. Nothing is getting through. He is not engaging in any other aspect of Wikipedia at all. If this is good faith then CIR comes into play. Nobody is benefiting from this being allowed to continue. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Now he is even challenging the right of people to !vote against his wishes. See this example. This is unacceptable per WP:OWN. He clearly thinks that these articles are his to delete almost unilaterally. He is completely unreachable. Many have tried. All have failed. This is a disruptive SPA. He has been given way more rope than can possibly be justified. Please can we just apply an indef and put a stop to this? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I do agree and support a indefinite block. Even after warning that he may be blocked from AfDs after making so much, he responds by playing victim and claiming that I "harassed" him and that I'm the one "disrupting Wikipedia" (link) despite just being a warning. It's obvious that he doesn't want to change his behavior. EvanTech10 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit it with this nonsense. Un-archiving an ANI thread just to continue personal beefs and spamming their nominations with notices of this ANI thread is textbook WP: HOUNDING. You are in the wrong, you are harassing this individual, and you need to stop pretending that having a personal dislike for an editor is an acceptable cover for any of this behavior. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anything you've said about these these two's conduct is correct. I disagree with the two folks you've responded to in that I don't think an indef is warranted yet, but Dncmartins continuing to open low-effort badly justified AfDs is disruptive and warrants further discussion. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think my frustration here is warranted. We've already had this discussion before. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that it would be productive to have a second round of this silliness. It is very telling that so much effort has gone into trying to slap this user with a TBAN, but almost no effort has gone into actually improving the articles being nominated, most of which are being deleted (in spite of your baseless claim that the nominations are "low-effort" and "badly justified"). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I can understand us coming to different assessments of the quality of these edits, but don't appreciate you calling mine baseless given the work I've done summarizing Dncmartins' edits in diffs above in the thread. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your claims are baseless. The core claim of your original message is "I personally believe this to be editing strictly for the WP:POINT" -- this is ascribing intentions to another person and is an assumption of bad faith, neither of which is appropriate in a venue that frequently hands out indefinite suspensions. Your analysis shows that most of the articles nominated by the user in question were deleted or merged, which directly contradicts your claim that these nominations are poorly constructed. You should not expect an A for Effort for attempting to get a user banned from AfDs. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll drop the stick at this point. I don't think we're going to agree on this. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Now there is a round of lazy PRODs. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions that are not thought to require discussion. Sure, people can think something is a PROD and be mistaken in good faith but Dncmartins knows that these deletions are controversial and that some of the AfDs have ended as Keeps. He must know that PROD is inappropriate. The motivation seems to be to avoid deletion discussions which might not go his way. That tips it over into vandalism for me. There is no respect for Wikipedia, just a desire to delete whatever he can. This abuse has to be stopped! Please can we get an indef, a topic ban, anything to stop the disruption? Why are we still indulging this? I've seen people indefed for less than 10% of this behaviour. Why are we acting like we can't see what is right in front of our faces? DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you could benefit from taking a deep breath and giving this thread some space to develop. You've been very clear in your last three additions to this thread that you support an indef, you don't have to keep banging that drum. I agree with HyperAccelerated that you spamming copy-pasted !votes is not helping the situation. Especially when you characterize their protesting of this spam as "challenging the right of people to !vote against his wishes" and start making declarations about another editor's motivations such as "He clearly thinks that these articles are his to delete almost unilaterally" and "The motivation seems to be to avoid deletion discussions which might not go his way". I understand your feelings but please be careful not to decide that you know how an editor thinks and what motivates them. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Leaving motivation aside, I think we need to get action on this ASAP. The disruption is ongoing and is clearly not going to stop until it is stopped. DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

'Disruption' by Dncmartins to be contested by multiple people (by the fact that people have opposed a topic ban above). Let some uninvolved admin assess the situation and see whether they agree that it is truly disruptive. ~2026-22071-94 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Another three new AfDs started in the last hour. I have already demonstrated that he has a pipeine of over a hundred potential AfDs. Please can somebody do something? DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I have speedily closed those nominations. Those pages are valid lists that are quite different from the software comparison articles, and Dncmartins is falsely claiming original research when there is none. I would Support at least temporary sanctions as these are definitely disruptive and unhelpful. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Quit fearmongering. You speak as if these articles are people trapped in a five alarm fire. They are not. They are pieces of text written by strangers on the Internet. You are again ascribing intentions to another user and assuming bad faith. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Clearly low-effort and very low signal:noise. Strongly suspect WP:POINT or WP:RGW, but irrespective of motivation, this must stop. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN The fact that they're continuing to nominate articles at a high rate whilst discussion is ongoing and not engaging in said discussion is now disruptive. This cannot continue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose sanctions. All I can see here is a new editor who learned (the hard way) about our policies on OR and SYNTH and is now trying to apply that knowledge. Regarding their AfDs, WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia is a policy-based deletion rationale, and I'm not convinced the pace of deletion is disruptive -- on the 27th, they did four and then stopped when asked. Tagging an article's issues to see if they can be fixed before a nomination is also an appropriate, non-disruptive way to try to apply our policies. The only action I question is the attempted use of PROD, but that too has stopped. Right now, the Village Pump discussion looks quite undecided about how our policies should apply to comparison articles; while that's ongoing, it's probably best not to nominate any "comparison" articles for deletion, and I have told Dncmartins so. Consensus on that topic will probably be easier with a lot more AGF than I have seen in this thread. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I sure hope he stops. However, from the edit history and past discussions here and on their talk page, he has a previous history of nominating more PRODs and AfDs after already being aware of the VP discussion, the previous ANI discussion, and countless warnings. For example, in just the past few days, he nominated 3 space-comparison articles after responding to one of the warnings on the talk page, saying: I understand you do not like current Wikipedia policies. I will submit those to AfD so you can post your opinions, but the AfDs were speedy closed because they were well-sourced (I checked them myself), meaning he clearly didn't even check the article itself before nominating them for deletion. To be clear, I'm not saying that most of these comparison articles should be kept (most are warranted to be deleted), but if you want to nominate the same type of article for deletion, it would be much better and non-disruptive to engage in a discussion about the state of these articles rather than nominating dozens to prove a point. EvanTech10 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, as soon as someone actually told them to stop nominating AfDs while the VP discussion was open, they did. This is someone who has not edited at all in several days, not someone currently on an unstoppable rampage. Maybe they won’t adjust course appropriately when they return to editing, in which case it may then be time to escalate, but sanctions are preventative, not punitive, and I’m not convinced there’s currently anything to prevent. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  And as I pointed out about, this thread was opened sixteen days ago - that's longer than some blocks. Orange sticker (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  He has finally stopped nominating new articles for deletion but this was only after being told to stop many times by several people over a sustained period. In the meantime, his focus seems to have switched to Deletion Review. IIRC, he did stop for a period during the last ANI thread only to resume once it had ended with no action taken. I strongly suspect that the exact same thing would happen again if no action is taken this time. DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I would concur with this. The disruption has now moved to WP:DRV and it is clear that they will not WP:DROPTHESTICK. Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I went over to DRV expecting to see disruption, but all I see is a single discussion (so far, anyway). This and the AFD activity (which in many cases is being endorsed by other editors in the form of delete votes) does not make the case for a disruptive editor. I'm not so sure they actually need to drop any sticks. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:POINT is all about editing that technically meets the letter of the guidelines and might even be correct on the merits, but is nonetheless disruptive. Wikipedia:Being right is not enough has been a principle for quite a long time. Katzrockso (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, sometimes it is enough. If someone wants to revert vandalism with malice in their heart I'm fine with it as long as vandalism gets reverted. My point is that WP:POINT does not kick in if the actions are not actually disruptive. Focus on results and not thoughtcrime. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  A single DRV strikes me a reasonable use of the appropriate process to determine if an AfD was closed appropriately. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are making it sound like the number of AfD nominations was excessive and disruptive - they were not and he had quite a high success rate until the last four were speedily closed by a non-admin on the basis they were disruptive, yet there is no consensus that their behaviour is disruptive. Orange sticker (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I was somewhat ventriloquizing the opposing viewpoint there -- I agree that the pace of AfDs was not disruptive. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Looking at this user's contributions, he doesn't seem like a contributive editor starting all those AfDs with the same explnation. Thelunamoon (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Warn or TBAN User has made no meaningful attempts to address previous concerns (1 2 3 4). They have continued copy-pasing the same rationales, and even began creating PRODs despite the clearly controvertial nature of their past AFDs. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions; their nominations aren't disrupting AfD, and many of the comparison-lists they're nominating do have substantial problems. Overall, what they're doing is a net positive for Wikipedia's content, and I can't see good grounds for anyone to feel too upset by it. Elemimele (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support sanctions I'm not sure *what* sanctions, and lean toward a simple-but-clear warning. The actions appear to be quite POINTY. At least some noms are at best half-considered and vague with little evidence of serious insight into the issue. The tagging also appears questionable (I personally tend to find such tags worthless without explicit lists of issues) and mass tagging is rarely productive. But it's a new user. I think a simple warning would be enough. Noms should be well-considered and at least somewhat detailed about specific issues. What exactly is OR for example. Tagging should, ideally, include a talk page comment that explains the issues. And even better, would include at least a start at fixing the issue(s) identified. Mass actions with little thought are disruptive, not helpful. Done in small quantities, the disruption is minor and new users would get feedback and learn. Done in large quantities, the feedback should be a bit more formal. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I restored OwenX (talk · contribs)'s close from the archive after it was reverted by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) for being an edit to archive. It is important to keep OwenX's assessment of the consensus since it is cited here in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community and here in the topic ban and partial block message. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 22 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)

So, broadly, I'm not certain you're going to find the relief you're seeking (and I'm not entirely clear what that relief may be, frankly - it's best to clarify what sanctions you're seeking - and remember, sanctions are not punitive, they are preventative). Do I think that M.S. Asher perhaps went a bit too far with their claims regarding socking? Yeah, slightly. As far as your content dispute... I think it remains precisely that, even with your ONUS concerns. A disagreement between two editors over a policy is not exactly a behavioral issue, even if you feel that the other party is interpreting or even wielding policy incorrectly.

As I stated earlier, I believe M.S. Asher's behavior and actions must viewed through the lens of someone that was, indeed, dealing with extensive socking. Talk:Germany-Iran relations had, what, 4 confirmed socks on it? @Confluencer/@Confluencerer/@KingofEdits103/@LordSer8000 - all banned.

And again, I agree, DrMelonsPhD; this is not your problem. You are an editor in good-standing and should be treated as such. But I think you can understand why M.S. Asher might deserve a bit of latitude on this, right?

There has been little to no interaction on this report, and I'm not sure there will be. Perhaps Blue-Sonnet would be willing to chime-in.

Instead of letting this die on the vine, here is what I propose: DrMelonsPhD and M.S. Asher; if you both would agree to my moderation, I am happy to sit-down and review the actual content dispute behind this. I have a relatively extensive history of providing what are — in my opinion — fair and impartial Third Opinions.

Preferably, I'd like to see @M.S. Asher apologize for jumping the gun a bit regarding your status, but I can't force them to do that. Otherwise, as I said, if you both feel comfortable with my trying to settle the actual content dispute, we can do that.

Otherwise, without that (or without another editor volunteering to do the same if either of you object to my involvement) I feel that I must propose that you both be subject to the restriction of not editing Germany-Iran relations (and related pages) without first obtaining a clear and unambiguous consensus for your proposed edit(s).  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I've said before that the likelihood of input from other editors goes down significantly in proportion to the length of posts and this is a good example of that. Whilst the writing from all parties is clear it's not entirely concise, so it's difficult for uninvolved editors (who are volunteers and doing this in their own time) to read through everything to figure out what's going on. That's just the nature of a voluntary project like this - we work on whatever we feel like doing and aren't obligated to do something at don't want to do.

I think it would be a great idea to accept moderation from someone who's already familiar with the situation, to try to stop this from escalating further - I applaud MWFwiki for offering to do this.

For whatever reason, be it length or lack of obviously-actionable policy violations, there's not been much interaction from the community on this matter - moderation will hopefully be a first step in resolution.

If disruption continues after moderation, then we'll hopefully have a clearer picture of what needs to happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Yes, I recognize the lack of engagement is due to the length; I will keep the report up regardless, it may take a while for engagement to occur but I am fine with that. As far as I am aware, there is no time limit on ANI reports. If an admin closes this discussion after some time due to no engagement, then so be it. I will perhaps then relist it in a more concise manner, if permitted. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki: I will address your points here in two separate sections to keep my prose organized. The first section will address this current ANI report and your points on it, while the second section will address the Germany-Iran relations Talk Page and your suggestions for moving forward.

1)This report:

You have informed me that any suggested relief or sanctions I seek should be preventative, not punitive; I am certainly aware of this policy. You have also mentioned I should clarify the sanctions I am seeking. A read of my ANI post will explicitly show that both of these elements are present in my report. I have overtly described that I recommend an indefinite ban on M.S. Asher’s account, or a topic ban on Nazi-related topics, with a preference for the former. My rationale was rather clear: M.S. Asher has repeatedly violated WP:ONUS policies on the relevant contested Talk Page we are all involved in, and he has been warned about this also in relation to that page and other pages; this is evidenced with diffs above. He has been warned several times by a multiplicity of different users, but has not ceased his misconduct. It is thus obvious that this pattern will continue if he is permitted to participate or edit on Wikipedia. This exact pattern is further observable with his personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry, despite a close of the investigations file without any sanctions on my account; again, evidence is located above with diffs.

This leads me to directly my next point. You have repeated that M.S. Asher has been dealing with four sockpuppet accounts and must therefore be given latitude; I wholeheartedly disagree on this latitude point, once again. His accusations are endless, and despite evidence to the contrary (demonstrated by my account’s standing and the close of the file), he deliberately elected not to engage with me in good faith and continued his attacks after the close of the investigation file.

By your own admission MWFwiki, M.S. Asher did, in fact, go too far in his behavioral misconduct and disruptions, on multiple fronts. An apology is thus insufficient. He is unequivocally in WP:NOTHERE territory now.

Everything I am elaborating here, by the way, is already laid out in greater depth within my ANI post, with diffs and evidence provided. I am merely re-establishing the above points here, only tailoring a response to you.

I also object to your claim that a disagreement over a policy is not a behavioral issue; this is not entirely correct. It is dependent on the policy and circumstances. For example, edit-warring by breaching the 3RR repeatedly is a policy violation and a bannable offence, while adding Original Research, for instance, is not always like that, as OR is more debatable. (This is also why my Policy Argument on the Germany-Iran Talk Page was not specifically an accusation of misbehavior, as M.S. Asher disingenuously claims.) I would extend repeated WP:ONUS violations as being analogous to the edit warring policy severity, not least because it necessarily involves edit warring in some form, but also because it’s a clear-cut perversion of policy. In this specific case, MWFwiki, M.S. Asher is already very aware of the proper procedure due to being warned several times, as I evidenced above with diffs; this strongly supports the preventative solutions I advised (a ban or a topic ban).

I believe that addresses your concerns with respect to this ANI report. Please let me know if I missed anything.

2)The Talk Page Discussion

I would absolutely invite you to provide your added opinion on Talk:Germany-Iran relations. In fact, both M.S. Asher and I have been wanting you to provide it for a short while now; if you look at that Talk Page, we have been asking for your input. Obviously, I will not speak for Asher as of the current moment, in case his view has changed; however, we have been tagging you on the page, hoping for your provided thoughts and perspectives.

My assumption by your proposed role as moderator is that you provide your opinion and then moderate the discussion between the three of us, with you yourself continuing to provide opinions as the discussion progresses; correct?

Just so you are aware, the history of that page is rather quite extensive; it took me, initially, a few hours to read everything and come up with my own Third Opinion, but with the recent developments beginning with my involvement a few months ago it might take you slightly longer to grasp everything. I would, thus, be more than willing to patiently await your lengthy response.

A few points to clarify, however: as I understand it, your added opinion does not necessitate the implementation of your (potential) proposed changes. A Third Opinion, if I am not mistaken, is simply the added involvement of another party with hopes of a compromised change being reached. If the disagreements continue, then no resolution is reached and nothing changes. I am clarifying this because, based on his replies on the article’s Talk Page, M.S. Asher seems to believe your input will necessarily lead to the implementation of your Third Opinion, as if it is a required policy. I am NOT saying this because I intend on dismissing your contributions; quite the contrary, I intend on giving them serious consideration. I am certainly willing to hear your thoughts; please read everything on the Talk Page. I do not doubt you will provide a fair and unbiased opinion on the topic; you seem reasonable and professional.

However, before you begin your study of the material on that Talk Page, I feel I must suggest a preliminary condition: the relevant information on Germany-Iran relations must be set back to its old pre-dispute text in alignment with WP:ONUS and WP:QUO; this older information has been on that article since 2008 and no consensus was ever reached to change it. It was only changed through M.S. Asher’s disruptive changes and recent revert, as you have already read from my ANI report above. It is entirely appropriate to make this change before discussions continue with your added opinion. Again, MWFwiki, by your own admission, M.S. Asher went too far with his behavior in this respect; you use the adjective “slightly” but nevertheless the result is the same.

Once this is done, I would then wholeheartedly agree that restrictions are placed on editing the contested material on Germany-Iran relations (and related articles) for me and Asher, until a final consensus is reached. That is, after all, the proper thing to do in any consensus discussion. I believe the same would apply to you once you provide your added Third Opinion, as it would convert you into a non-neutral party, but correct me if I am wrong regarding your account specifically.

If the three of us can all agree to these conditions, I will terminate this ANI report immediately; we will then continue our discussions on that Talk Page. If we do not all agree on this, then we will still continue discussing things on the Talk Page to seek consensus regardless, with MWFwiki’s added opinion, but this ANI report will stay up until admins eventually chime in with their decisions, or until this is closed. In either case, I agree that your opinion would be a great addition, MWFwiki.

My conditions here are more-than-fair, considering compliance with me here would allow M.S. Asher to get off the hook scot-free despite his severe misconduct, especially given that sanctions against him are possibly in order; it also would restore the rightful policy-compliant version of the text on that article (as it should be done). I am truly being more than kind with this suggestion. I should overtly communicate with you both here, too, that I may still restore that content to its old pre-dispute text regardless, as I undoubtedly have policy on my side, along with your agreement, MWFwiki, that Asher did go "slightly" too far in his WP:ONUS violations. At the very least, however, if we all come to an overt agreement on this restoration point, it would be more friendly and communicative, in the spirit of mutual encyclopedia-building and policy-adherence and it will ensure the deletion of this report, much to Asher's benefit.

I believe the reason admins have held off reviewing this report so far is because of its length; in due time, perhaps admins will review this report and chime in. I continue to be confident in my report.

Take all the time you need to consider my response here. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I understand your frustration(s) and sentiment, and I certainly don't mean to brush-off your concerns. I went and re-examined your initial filings and points of concern/your evidence. Yes, I think that @M.S. Asher went too far with their accusations, particularly sans evidence apart from coincidence (which is not evidence, unless we're into DUCK territory). I won't qualify this statement as with "slightly" or what have you. I agree that they were too free with their accusations/aspersions.

Do I think what we have here is worth an indefinite ban? No. And I see no support for a CBAN, otherwise. Perhaps someone will disagree, but this filing was made 4-5 days ago, now, and there has been no involvement outside of us. I hope that changes, to be clear, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Part of My hesitance is that @M.S. Asher has always responded to concerns, they've always provided explanations/defenses, and have seemingly been receptive to constructive criticism, from what I can gather from their User Talk page.

Without circling-back to the issues on Talk:Germany-Iran relations fully just yet, I'd like to address the possibilities for sanctions. An article ban or a wider topic ban is, again, a bit of a stretch in my mind. We must WP:AGF; we must separate behavioral concerns from content concerns. ...anyways, I digress.

Allow me to propose this: If @M.S. Asher agreed not to edit Germany-Iran relations without first obtaining clear consensus for the proposed edit(s) [at least until we resolve the primary content dispute, but I would suggest they seek consensus for major content edits beyond this period, as well], and they were to accept this a warning that their conduct was violative of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, and general behavioral policies and guidelines [and an apology wouldn't hurt], would you, @DrMelonsPhD, accept this as a solution for now and withdraw your filing? You would obviously be free to re-file, and you would have a warning to back you if you did so. As I mentioned... it's been 4-5 days. It is possible this is the only interaction you're going to get on this. On the flip-side; @M.S. Asher, I have to advise you, if you don't accept this offer, another user or even an admin could look-over all this (and still can, to be fair) and determine that you deserve harsher sanctions.

As far as what will happen with the article itself, I am happy to mediate. The only reason I haven't responded there so far is because this was active. As far as @DrMelonsPhD's request that we revert the article to a certain state, I think that is reasonable, at least while we hash things out.

Assuming you both agree to this, I will:

1. I will NAC this out as a withdrawn filing with @M.S. Asher voluntarily-accepting a warning for their behavior.

2. Advise that @DrMelonsPhD revert the page in-question to the stable state they mentioned.

3. The three of us will then start an informal mediation process.

If either party objects to these points then... that's that. It stays open until it's archived or until someone else closes it (or we reach an alternative agreement). If another party or an administrator wishes to chime-in and also aren't supportive of my proposal, then that will also keep this open.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki: Your proposition is entirely reasonable. I accept these proposed conditions, I think they are fair.

To reiterate your terms, for clarity: if

(1) M.S. Asher agrees not to edit Germany-Iran relations (and also, to not edit this specific contested information to his favor as found on other related pages too) until a final consensus is reached on [[Talk:Germany-Iran relations]; and

(2) We all agree that I restore the Germany-Iran relations page back to the stable pre-dispute text to fix the WP:ONUS issue, without this text being changed again until a final consensus is reached on the matter, agreed upon by all parties;

then I will terminate this ANI report and we can chalk this up to (another) warning for M.S. Asher. Thanks for your professionalism and reasonable proposal MWFwiki; this is entirely fair.

If M.S. Asher disagrees, then this report will stay up; perhaps once closed without a decision, I will relist it but with more concise information to receive more engagement; this would especially be the case if disruptive behavior continues from M.S. Asher. In other words, I would not drop the issue, in such a scenario.

M.S. Asher: Please note that MWFwiki is of the opinion, as one can clearly observe by his response, that the restoration of the stable pre-dispute text being restored, is, in fact, totally fair. The only reason I highlight this from his response is because on Talk:Germany-Iran relations you asked for his input regarding your recent June 16 reversion; you now have your answer.

Anyways, MWFwiki: if M.S. Asher agrees to these terms, we can then officially initiate your mediation process and a continuation of the Talk Page discussion, now with your involvement. Thanks again for your professionalism. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to all of this, with the following caveats:

1. Obviously @M.S. Asher must agree to these terms.

2. Regarding changing/reverting the article, we would need to be careful, as there are probably other, good-faith and constructive edits made there in the last 18 years. There have seemingly been at least a couple hundred edits in that time. I'm not sure I could justify rolling-back 18-years. While I think a rollback to some stabler point is appropriate, I'm not sure precisely where that is. I haven't looked, as if M.S. Asher is not inclined to agree with these proposals then I'm not certain where that leaves us.

There is has been no community consensus for anything, no administrator comments, and I'm not even sure if re-filing would help (or would even be appropriate, frankly... I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but it's obviously not appropriate to file ANI reports until you obtain a result favorable to you; you might get away with a single re-file, but I would advise caution). I am still willing to continue the Third Opinion process, regardless, once this is closed, to be clear.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I would drop this ANI report only if M.S. Asher agrees to these terms.

On the point of reverting the article from M.S. Asher's recent inappropriate June 16 edit back to the stable pre-dispute version, it is a very easy fix. If you check the edit history on Germany-Iran relations, I had already restored the proper stable version on the page prior; M.S. Asher simply reverted which resulted in the latest version of the article.

Fixing this issue, therefore, is only one edit away, not a couple hundred (maybe two edits away, as a temp user fixed a typo in-between). Feel free to take a look at the edit history yourself, here. My edit was on June 12, M.S. Asher's imposition of his own edit, without consensus, occurred on June 16; this being the second time he did this. Thus, the restoration/rollback point is not a complicated problem.

If M.S. Asher does not agree with your proposal, here, then I will likely revert back to the old pre-dispute text anyway. If you read Asher's edit summary for his edit, he is mainly concerned that "other parties" (meaning you, MWFwiki) have not chimed in as it relates to my policy reason for setting things back to the old text (these being WP:ONUS and WP:QUO); he further asked for your input regarding his reversion on Talk:Germany-Iran relations. Well, now you have in fact provided your input, here: you have agreed that Asher did, in fact, go slightly too far in disrupting WP:ONUS and engaging in unjustified sockpuppet accusations. Since this satisfies his concerns, which he provided as the rationale for the edit summary, I can definitely set things back to the old text regardless.

All this agreement does, really, is have me agree to withdraw this filing and save Asher the possibility of sanctions, much to his benefit. I already described this above.

On your last point, I agree: if Asher does not agree to these terms, I will try re-filing one last time in a more concise manner to gain more engagement from admins. After all, the only reason this report has not obtained engagement is due to length alone. M.S. Asher has multiple charges against him, so the likelihood of sanctions against him in some form is, in my opinion, likely. I will certainly not be spamming reports in hopes of obtaining a favorable result.

Anyway, let us stop creating clutter and lengthening this thread more than it needs to be; there is a lot to read here for Asher and others. It is best not to make it longer. Any "what if" scenarios can be held off for a later discussion, as there is indeed a possibility that Asher agrees to your proposal, MWFwiki. I have agreed; let's see what he says. We shall await his response.DrMelonsPhD (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I glossed over the discussion and I dont have any immediate objections to the proposal by MWFwiki but Ill need more time to review since I’ve been busy and dont have more time atm. I can get back tomorrow night perhaps. M.S. Asher (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine; it is quite the lengthy thread. Take all the time you need to respond. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A disagreement between two editors over a policy is not exactly a behavioral issue, even if you feel that the other party is interpreting or even wielding policy incorrectly. Especially a disgreement over ONUS, which is one of the most heavily-disputed lines of text on any policy page. People have literally been arguing over its meaning for years; I don't think it's ever appropriate to sanction someone over it unless they're blatantly violating other policies in the process (ie. they're clearly edit-warring), and even in the case of edit-warring, anyone else edit-warring in a two-sided edit-war would face the same sanctions, by default; there is definitely no agreement that ONUS creates a situation where edit-warring to keep something out is "favored" over edit-warring to keep something in. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Less is more. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Veesterrooboi

Veesterrooboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned on their talk page by multiple editors (ESkog, LuniZunie, Jessicapierce, Hzh, and myself) over several months for disruptive edits to multiple pages. Most recently, they have been persistently editing Putian people in an attempt to change the topic of the article (e.g. Special:Diff/1359678622, Special:Diff/1359849711, Special:Diff/1360533190; the second diff also has a personal attack in the edit summary). Both Jessicapierce and I have warned Veesterrooboi specifically about this page and they have continued to edit disruptively. [Edit: Previous instances of vandalism include:

• Special:Diff/1348478391
• Special:Diff/1334289171
• Special:Diff/1281806278

Almost every edit by this editor has been reverted (only a few of these reverts were by me).] Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC), edited 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC).

There is discussion (or rather warnings) on a user talk page, and apparently now there's discussion here. There is, conversely, no discussion at the one place it should appear, that being Talk:Putian people. I suggest that some discussion take place there, rather than continued edit warring. (And while the edit summary you point to, Freelance Intellectual, is indeed less than ideal, your inappropriate characterization of these edits as "vandalism" is not great either. However strongly you may disagree with these edits, they are not vandalism.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: That's a fair point for that particular page. I raised this report as this appeared to me to be a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. I presented the most recent example of disruptive behaviour; previous behaviour is unambiguously vandalism. I can update the OP if that would be helpful. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do not edit comments after they've been replied to. If there's more to say, just say it in an additional comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of that general principle. I included a new timestamp, following WP:REDACT and believing it was best to keep all the information in one place. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Veesterrooboi 31 hours for the repeated personal attacks. Discussion should continue on any further required sanctions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Seungri400 and Gapla

We have another micronation being promoted in the context of the Croatia-Serbia border dispute. I tried to reason with this editor at User talk:Seungri400#"Gapla" and Talk:Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Unclear criteria for inclusion, to no avail. I don't think this is an acceptable level of wikilawyering. --Joy (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Monkegamer123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Monkegamer123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. This user created Draft:DoorDash Girl controversy which is borrowing rather heavily from this deleted article without attribution. Personally, copyright-wise, I don't mind. But I can't remember if anyone else made significant contributions to that article before it was deleted. So my permission might not be enough.

And then I noticed Monkegamer123 has more drafts. Uh-oh. I have a bad feeling about this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It's one thing to have a bad feeling, but is there anything else in the user's article drafts that suggests reusing deleted/copyrighted material? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: maybe it's a one-off. People tend to be creatures of habit, but it's technically possible. If someone was copying from sources beyond Earwig's reach, wow would we even know? Or alternatively, could an LLM violate copyright like this? That might be an "innocent" explanation. (well, more innocent than intentionally violating someone else's copyright) At any rate, you've been warned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your concern is reasonable, but I presume that WP:AGF would have you reach out to the user first to seek clarification. (You have a particularly good reason to do that because you believe the user to be recycling copyrighted content you authored!) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Jprg1966, I may have grown more cynical over the years. I've asked now, but I'm having trouble imagining what a fully innocent excuse could be.
Even if it is a one-off an admin should check if anyone else made any non-minor contributions to that article and whether those also ended up in the draft. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Monkegamer123 made no edits to the deleted article. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rusted AutoParts making personal attacks and casting aspersions

I recently tagged the filmography section of a BLP that had zero citations as unsourced. After which, Rusted AutoParts removed the tag without resolving the issue, and falsely claimed that "they are sourced in the career section right above". I then restored the template, and left a level 1 warning on their talk page for removing the template without resolving it, and in my own edit summary said "P.S. it's pretty dumb to lie in edit summaries..." since it was very obvious that every entry was not sourced in the section above. They removed the warning on their talk page, labeling it as "condescension", and then made a personal attack in their next edit summary on the article calling me "the lazy editor wishing only to complain" (while also adding new sources not previously included in the article). At which point, I left another message on their talk page telling them not to make personal attacks against other editors. Instead of a simple apology, they claimed I was acting in bad faith. The conversation only devolved from there, with them continuing to be uncivil, claim I acted in bad faith, cast aspersions, and refuse to apologize or even strike-through their attacks against me. This continued, including them searching my talk page archive to find something to attack me with again, at which point I asked for an apology, as none of my edits were in bad faith or failed WP:NPA. Instead of apologizing for the personal attacks and aspersions, they accused me of hounding them and said they do not owe me an apology. Since they seem to not care about following NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS (or even just simply apologizing for said attacks), I feel at this point there needs to be someone else involved, even if only as a third opinion/mediator. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So..I don't know how to approach this. I've explained to the editor I felt bad faith was pointed my way when they inferred I was a liar. I considered it needless, and insulting because it wasn't true. Whether my initial edit removing the tag was right is not in dispute. It wasn't correct. My assuming that the Career section had sources was immaterial to the fact the filmography section was unsourced. It wasn't me "lying", So I took exception to that. Being called a liar is rather accusatory and inflammatory. I felt that since bad faith was being pointed my way, I elected to be a little childish when adding sources to the tables, and made the lazy remark in my summary. It was to make a point about needless bad faith. I told the editor as much repeatedly on my talk page when they clearly took exception. I also told the editor repeatedly we can both admit fault and move on, or it could be dropped. I asked the editor multiple times to leave me alone, and they wouldn't, which is why I accused them of hounding me because they felt owed an apology when they wouldn't recognize why I took issue with them in the first place. I brought their past block up as their past block involved not dropping the stick in that given situation. They wouldn't drop the stick here when I asked them to leave me alone. I do not see why this merits a noticeboard report. Rusted AutoParts 22:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So... You made a false statement (all entries were not sourced in the section above), to which I commented that "it's pretty dumb to lie". And you felt that deserved multiple personal attacks and aspersions without any remorse or apology? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"How did I act in bad faith"? you ask, while you are still trying to insist on me being a liar. Calling someone a liar off the rip was needless, I don't know why you don't see that. Well, I suppose you did above when you noted you said "it's dumb to lie", but apparently you aren't willing to grasp why I would resent this. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

1. not all falsehoods are lies. people make mistakes. if someone is incorrect over a trivial matter like this, it's probably just a mistake. not a lie.
2. both of you: knock it off. you've both been on this website long enough to know better. Morwen (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

   I’ve been more than happy to just drop this. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Fine, they didn't lie when they falsely stated the entries were sourced above (even though I had added that tag because I had already checked that they were not all sourced above). But am I wrong to expect just a simple apology after multiple unwarranted personal attacks? Is that just accepted behavior around here now? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   We're all expected to act like adults, which means administrators can't force editors to apologise to each other - but if it's desperately needed then would you also apologise for calling them a liar? That was also unwarranted.

   Alternatively, you can both call it even and just move on. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I just did, but I guess everyone here is just lazy, and that's ok... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I don't see any apology from you. I see a very grudging acknowledgement that people can be mistaken, that's all. Am I missing something? Morwen (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Nope, I agreed that they didn't lie. It's more of an apology than I got for the overtly personal attacks against me. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Sorry, did you mean that I'm lazy? I'm not sure what you mean by that. This wasn't a clear apology, it was a grudging admission that you were wrong. If you've apologised elsewhere then I've not been able to find it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm done... I understand that it's ok to make spiteful personal attacks against another editor when you're called out on your own false statements, and I apologize for expecting the rules to be enforced. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   There's obviously still some resentment and it may be best if you take some time away from each other to cool down - this doesn't seem like a matter for ANI and I'm sure the last thing we all want is for it to become one.

   Don't reply to this comment, just leave Wikipedia for a few hours and go and do something that you enjoy. Watch TV, go for a walk, read a book, play a game, just do something to take your mind off this situation. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well, yeah... when I'm called "lazy" for taking the time to check the sources and adding a template after finding that not everything was supported by the available sources (let alone a single citation in that section), and "acting in bad faith" when I suggest that they shouldn't liemake obviously false statements in their edit summaries after they claimed that everything is supported without putting in the same amount of work as I had (checking the sources themselves), I tend to resent being told that I'm the one that needs to apologize. Now I know that casting aspersions is OK, and the one that was attacked will need to apologize. I'm not going to take a break, and I think it's rude to suggest that, but obviously there is no reason for me to continue this discussion if no one cares about NPA. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Exactly how much time did it take you to glance through that section and notice the absence of little blue clicky numbers? I didn't turn on my timer, but I estimate that it took me about three seconds.

   When you find that some things are sourced elsewhere in an article (about which see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed – this is the page that details the WP:FA standards) and other things are not, it's usually more helpful to add individual {{citation needed}} tags than to add a whole-article or whole-section tag. Most editors find that it's easier to use the visual editor when editing tables. Open the article in the visual editor, then double-click to get into the cell that needs a citation. Go to Insert > Template in the toolbar and search for the template you want. After you've got one on the page, it's easy to copy/paste them into multiple locations.

   You could even re-use a few refs to cite the rest of the contents while you're there. Just put your cursor in the correct location and click the "Cite" button. The list will appear under "Re-use". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Thank you, but I don't use visual editor or any scripts, I find them too confusing. I think I understand how to use {{citation needed}} well enough, but apparently I'm just a lazy retard. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I don't know if this will help or just make things worse, but do you not see the unfortunate irony when you complain you didn't receive an apology and someone else points out you never apologised for calling someone a liar and you then incorrectly claim state you did apologise when no one else reading it sees it as an apology? No one has called you a liar because you incorrectly claimed stated you apologised and nor should they have. And if given all that has gone down and the perhaps justified unhappiness you have about it all, you couldn't and still aren't willing to apologise when you did do something wrong, maybe you can understand why the other editor also may not be willing to apologise and why us forcing either of you to apologise when neither of you seem willing to, is not productive? Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) 01:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that I didn't violate NPA, I merely suggested that "lying is pretty dumb" after they blindly removed the template and claimed that everything was sourced without even bothering to check if that was true. If they had initially asked me to apologize for calling their overtly false statement a "lie", I would have. Instead, they called me a "lazy editor wishing only to complain" and "acting in bad faith". Then, they accused me of WP:HOUNDing them just for asking for an apology for their PAs within that same thread, I never followed them to other pages or did anything to restrict or dull their experience here (that I know of, we have never even interacted with each other before this). Then, once here, I am told that I am the one that needs to apologize. For what? If you don't want people to suggest you not lie in your edit summaries, then maybe you shouldn't make obviously false claims in your edit summaries. For what it's worth, I apologize for calling their obviously false statement a "lie", I recognize that I could have said it differently and probably would have if I had checked their experience level before warning them. Honestly, I expected no response (99% of my warning templates go un-answered), or at least a civil conversation. When their immediate response was to start insulting me without evidence, I tried to correct their understanding of NPA and ASPERSIONS, and they only continued with the insults. In the end, I simply asked for an apology, and they outright refused. Had I known this would turn into a boomerang at AN/I because I called a lie a lie, I would have just let the whole thing go. I should have just let them remove the template and said nothing. User:Rusted AutoParts, I'm sorry for suggesting you not "lie" in your future edit summaries, I intended for it to be a learning experience for what I assumed was a new editor, not an insult. Everyone else, I'm sorry I filed this report, I keep forgetting I'm supposed to stay in my corner and not interact with other editors or have an opinion, it never turns out well for me. And now it's bed-time, thank you all for reminding me how wrong I am about everything here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well if a lie is a lie and people shouldn't make obvious false statements if they don't want people to imply they're lying, maybe you shouldn't make obvious false statements at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   BTW, you seem to be missing what's an even more important point. You're acting like it's very obvious that not everything was sourced in the above section. But it's simply not. I had originally assumed given how strong you were about this that the were basically no sources in the above section. But there were a bunch. Is everything in the latter section sourced in the previous section? I have no idea, I'm not going to investigate but will take your word for it if since you're saying they aren't. But it's not nearly as obvious as you've stated that some of the information is not sourced above. So what this most likely is even just from quickly considering it, is at best careless wording. An editor sees a bunch of the stuff is sourced above, and without checking properly says something which could be taken to mean in context that it's all sourced above. When all they really know is a bunch of it is sourced & they didn't check to make sure all of it was. What they should have said is something like 'at least some of it is sourced in the career section right above' or maybe 'at least some of it, maybe all, is sourced in the career section right above'. Instead what they said is 'they are sourced in the career section right above the filmography'. This statement is ambiguous. Given the context it could read to mean everything is sourced in the section above which is how you seem to have read it. Since they probably did not look that carefully this wasn't ideal since the statement could have been read as stronger than it should have been based on the evidence they had. But it doesn't even clearly say all of it is sourced, it's ambiguous whether the editor is saying all of it is sourced (which I guess is untrue) and some of it is sourced (which is true). So that's very very far from a lie. And I'll be clear, while I do not believe anyone should call you a liar, from my PoV, it's much more obvious and easy to see that you statement that you apologised was untrue until your 02:53 comment. So if you still feel it's justified to call them a liar over it, then you should accept people are going to call you a liar for making a statement which seems more obviously untrue and incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Reading more carefully, while you haven't clarified despite multiple people calling you out for not apologising, what you said "I just did". It's ambiguous whether this is a reply to the question "would you also apologise for calling them a liar?". Or a reply to "Alternatively, you can both call it even and just move on.". Perhaps you'd intended the "I just did" to mean you called it even and moved on rather than to say you apologised. This doesn't help you much though since it's clear you had not called it even and moved on either. Even accepting you might have changed your mind after others replied, the very statement where you said "I just did" demonstrates you had not called it even and moved on. Either way, I stick by my original comment to me. Whatever "I just did" was a reply to, it's a more obvious untrue/false/whatever you want to call it statement than the edit summary you so contest. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   To clarify, since y'all are going to continue harping on this and continue to make me the bad guy for some fucking reason, the "I just did" was in response to "let it go". If you can read, Morwen said "knock it off", I stated that "fine, they didn't lie...", Blue sonnet said "move on", I said "I just did", and then Morwan responded "I don't see an apology from you", and I responded "Nope, I agreed that they didn't lie". I next said "I'm done...", but others wanted to continue bitching about me calling a lie a lie. Never once do I see a single person asking Rusted to apologize, or even a single comment directed towards them about NPA or ASPERSIONS, just bitching that I didn't apologize. And just because you're too lazy to investigate if everything was sourced or not does not mean I was. I had investigated it and found that not everything was sourced above, so I knew their statement was false and they had not bothered to investigate before blindly removing the tag. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   What obviously false statements have I made here at ANI? - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I thought your “I just did” was response to the question you were asked. So, evidently, did BlueSonnet. Morwen (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well, obviously it does not matter what I say at this point, everyone has already made up their mind that I was in the wrong for calling a lie a lie. Moreso, I am now being accused of lying myself here at ANI. I give up... I was the bad guy here, Rusted did nothing wrong, casting aspersions is perfectly fine, ANI is full of lazy admins, and I should just let other editors do whatever they want, fuck the rules. Thanks for nothing, ANI, I'm going back to bed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   The obvious false statement was that you had neither apologised nor "call[ed] it even and just move on" which your 'I just did' comment can reasonably be interpreted to mean.

   And I don't see where anyone has said Rusted did nothing wrong. All that has been said it's not something for ANI since sanctions are preventative not punitive, we never force apologies and editors need to take great care when they say something is a lie. Also that your case demonstrates both why we never force apologies and why it's imperative editors take great about calling something a lie. It's understandable you did not want to apologise and for that reason it was a terrible idea for us to force you to and so we never did.

   Your 'lie' statement supposes that the editor knew something they most likely did not know and also that your interpretation of their statement was correct. Whether they were lazy or whatever else, them not knowing that some of the information was unsourced doesn't make what they said a 'lie'. It makes it at worst a careless mistake. But also as I've pointed out, reading the edit summary carefully it doesn't even clearly say all the information is sourced above. It's ambiguous whether they mean it's all sourced (which is apparently untrue) or only some (which is true).

   I'll leave one final point. I think this amply demonstrates that what is obvious to one editor is not always obvious to another. How one editor reads something is not always going to be the same as how another editor reads it. You feel that your lie comment does not imply that the editor is a liar, several of us including the editor it was directed at feel it does.

   Several of us read your comment as saying you had apologised. You didn't mean it like that, but it's how we read it. You didn't sufficiently clarify when people questioned you on it, it seems you didn't understand the point being made. I read what you'd said more carefully and looking at the context recognised it was more ambiguous than I had originally read it and mentioned this. (Although as I said, I'm not convinced it makes a big difference in the end since to my mind, even if you meant it as a reply to the move on thing, it was still clearly untrue even at the time the statement.)

   I also read what Rusted had said more carefully and realised their statement was more ambiguous than you read it too. For many people implying that they lie is incredibly offensive since it means they intentionally said something they knew was untrue, rather than just worded something so poorly it was misunderstood or they didn't know something which perhaps they should have checked before they made their statement. While you may have felt your statement did not imply the editor was a liar, since the editor and plenty of us feel it does, this is an area you need to reform. Just like Rusted needs to ensure they do not make personal attacks no matter what personal attacks or perceived personal attacks they receive.

   For all these reasons, implying or calling some a liar is something that should be done very sparingly and only in very clear cut cases which is self-evidently not the case here. This is not to say you can never say it, recently an editor kept saying they hadn't copied something from the website when they clearly did. It's fine to say they were lying in that instance. But such cases are rare.

   Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I know I said the above will be my last but one final point just occurred to me. I've already said AFAICT, no one has said Rusted did nothing wrong. I'll go further than that. While I don't think it's helpful generally to compare fault, in this case I will say from my quick look on the whole Rusted did behave significantly poorer than you in the original mess. I can't speak for anything else but I wouldn't be surprised if anyone looking at it will feel the same.

   If you think the reactions here where you've come under more discussion indicate anything else, IMO you're very likely wrong. The reason for all this is not because editors think you are more at fault than Rusted but because of the differing ways you've behaved here at ANI. As I said, sanctions are preventative not punitive. That also applies in a broad sense as to how we deal with editors even without sanctions.

   Once it reached ANI, Rusted seem to quickly acknowledge their fault even if they didn't immediately apologise. (And to my read, when they did apologise it come across as much more genuine.) They seem to be trying to learn how they went wrong and how to do better and do seem to be at least partly understanding things better. This gives us some confidence that perhaps they will improve and there won't be a repeat. Of course if they keep ending up back here for cause, we'll learn our confidence is misplaced, but we will wait for that, as we always do.

   By comparison to my read, your replies have barely acknowledged any fault and don't really demonstrate much understanding of why editors feel your behaviour here was also problematic. The fact it was less problematic than Rusted doesn't change that it is behaviour that should change. While I do think you will be more careful in using the word 'lie' etc in the future, I'm not sure you really appreciate why you need to be. Which is is very unfortunate since IMO it means there will often be similar problems in other areas. So definitely I, and I think others, are more concerned about whether you will improve & are trying to get it through to you, unsuccessful as it seems to be, that you do need to. And there's also simply more to talk with you about since you were actively disagreeing with us whereas Rusted seemed to mostly accepted what others said to them.

   Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I genuinely do not know what else is there to be done here. It's your choice as to if you accept my apology below or not, but I have offered one, I am not sure why you are still so upset about. It was not whether you want to help when seeing an erroneous edit, the problem was your insinuation I was lying about what I said. What I said was false, yes, but it was not at all based off me wishing to lie to you or be deceitful. It was a flippant assumption on my part that since the Career section of the article had (the majority) of the credits sourced. we didn't need to do so for the tables, which is incorrect because the tables are their own section. When you wish to resolve a potential content dispute, you shouldn't be making flippant remarks in your edit summaries figuring the person you're addressing is the worst case scenario before you discuss it more indepth. So I came away bothered by your insinuation, so I decided to be pettily pointed when providing the sources into the tables. The way you were upset about being called lazy (which I'll reiterate I don't actually think you are) is how I felt about being called a liar, I'm not sure why I'm not being afforded that understanding from you, you decided my actions were to be intentionally untruthful, and that really sucked.

   I just really don't know what else can be said here, I'm not sure why you're still upset, and I certainly don't see why you referring to yourself as a "retard" was at all necessary, absolutely no one here thinks that of you. But this feels like it's looped to my very first reply on my talk page when I said we can either both admit we could have gone about this better and move on, or just move on without doing that and call it a day. Rusted AutoParts 14:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   You and I are fine, Rusted, we had both very clearly apologized and moved on. My problem is with the editors above that, literally the first thing anyone else said about the subject was "knock it off". Or, after I said I was "done" with the situation, continued to bitch about me being resentful, tell me to "not reply and take a break", teach me how to use citation tags like I'm a fucking noob, or say that I was the one that needed to apologize. Or, after I did apologize and went to bed, Nil wrote a whole fucking book about how I had somehow lied myself because they were too stupid to figure out how a conversation works, that they were too lazy to put in the work that I had, and going into detail continuing to demand that I apologize 6 fucking hours after I had not only apologized here, but also on your page which you just linked, and the two of us had obviously moved on. I'm just tired of the high-and-mighty editors around here anymore, "good for me, but not for thee", "do as I say, not as I do", bullshit attitudes. If Nil hadn't decided to write those multiple lengthy complaints and false accusations about me, this would all have been over last night, this should have all been over last night, but someone just had to continue dragging my sorry ass through the mud in Steven King level detail to make sure I felt like a piece of shit for even reporting this. And then they wonder why we have a problem retaining new editors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In the interests of putting this situation to bed, I apologize for the lazy remark. As I said, it was meant to be a pointed remark about bad faith. I had no genuine belief that you are a lazy editor. I just didn't appreciate the liar insinuation. It to me suggested that I was purposefully fibbing about something when it was just me figuring we didn't need sources in the tables because (the majority) of the credits were sourced in the above section (again, this was wrong to figure). This was the outcome I was hoping for when this issue first kicked off, for there to be a reflection of both of us operating in needless bad faith and moving forward from it. I just wasn't feeling that you understood why I was insulted by the liar remark, so that's why I wasn't interested in apologizing. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been a little confused about the way you've been talking about "bad faith" in this whole discussion, and I think I've put finger on it now - do you think "operating in bad faith" means, "not assuming good faith"? Because that's really not what it means (see wiktionary). Saying someone is operating in bad faith is saying that they are aiming to decieve and conceal their true intentions, which are secretly malicious. Now obviously, since you're saying you have been operating in bad faith; i don't think that's some kind of confession from you. I think you just genuinely didn't understand the term and been using it a way that's not necessarily de-escalatory. Morwen (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misusing the word operating, I was meaning how situations are approached. I felt since the warning from Adolphus was the first time he directly communicated with me, inferring I'm a liar from the go is not good-faithed, and that's what bothered me. I'm not gonna argue I was not childish in my response, it just sucked that I was being thought of in a way where I was apparently intentionally lying to bolster my stance. Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'm still not convinced you're using that term right. What he was doing was not assuming good faith. That doesn't mean he's "bad faith", or "not good-faithed". Morwen (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find good faith was being assumed of me when Adolphus first addressed me about my edit. From there it just became bickering. I have no personality issues against them, just that them calling me a liar about my edit did not afford the interaction the space to discuss it neutrally because they seemed to assume bad faith of me. Apologies if I'm causing any confusions with how I'm trying to articulate this. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with what you've said now. Morwen (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you AN/I for making me the bad guy after being personally attacked for merely suggesting that "lying is pretty dumb" and then asking for an apology. I did not outright call them a liar before they called me condescending and a "lazy editor wishing only to complain". Nor did I ever act in bad faith. I have learned from this experience that it is perfectly OK to make personal attacks for no reason, and that "I thought they were acting in bad faith" is the only excuse you need to cast aspersions and get away with it. I have once again been reminded that my opinion is worth less than nothing around here and interacting with other editors in general is clearly a bad idea. It's this kind of bullshit that runs off good editors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying “lying is pretty dumb” is a personal attack in context, and you would find this obvious if it had been directed at you. In the meantime, a gracious apology has been offered by the other party to this dispute. Perhaps you should take some of the many pieces of good advice you have been offered instead of complaining more? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We have no interest in adjudicating who is the "good guy" and "bad guys" in disputes. What we want is people having childish spats with each other to grow up and get back to working on the project constructively or find a more appropriate forum than English Wikipedia to snipe at each other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The temporary account and CoffeeCrumbs are both right. You sound exhausting to deal with. This passive-aggressive attitude is not civil, and it seems indicative of a battleground mentality when it comes to minor editing disputes. Comparing Rusted's behavior to yours shows a noticeable difference in attitudes. Rusted has had issues with civility in the (distant) past but seems to have calmed down a lot over the years. At this point, I think Rusted is generally pretty calm until poked, and you're poking him. Next time, maybe try fixing problems in articles instead of leaving drive-by cleanup tags. Wikipedia needs more people who fix problems and fewer who just tag them for other people to fix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are implying that all I do is drive-by tag articles, and have never fixed or improved any, I suggest you take a closer look at my contributions before running your mouth. Obviously, you're just another editor wanting to continue dragging me through the mud after this situation was already done and over last night (when Rusted and I both apologized to each other). Do you normally assume all of an editor's activity here at Wikipedia based on a single edit and pile on with insults, or just for me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Being a WikiImp is not against the rules of Wikipedia. Tagging articles helps other editors to fix issues on articles, even if the tagger doesn't fix it themselves. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be completely true if it were not me that they are bitching about... although I don't identify as a WikiImp... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Preventing XC from being automatically given due to permission gaming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Komasi23i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin give and remove XC from Komasi23i, in order to prevent them from automatically gaining XC upon reaching 500 edits? They decided to attempt permission gaming in the sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

CU blocked. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible COI editing by User:LaffyTaffer

User LaffyTaffer has systematically removed sourced content about workplace allegations from Craig Groeschel and Life.Church articles across multiple edits on 17 June 2026.

Affected articles:

• Craig Groeschel
• Life.Church

Removal pattern:

• Diff 1359846106 - Removed workplace allegations section
• Diff 1359845871 - Removed additional sourced material
• Diff 1359845983 - Identical removals on Life.Church

Talk page documentation:

• Craig Groeschel talk discussion
• Life.Church talk discussion

The removed material is properly sourced per WP:BLP guidelines. Removal appears coordinated and systematic rather than editorial improvement.

Request: Checkuser investigation of LaffyTaffer account and IP against Life.Church organizational IPs (205.236.56.0-205.236.56.255 per WHOIS) to determine if this represents undisclosed conflict of interest editing. Additionally, request review of revision tags: my 31 May 2026 edit adding sourced material was tagged "possible BLP issue or vandalism" despite being properly sourced per WP:BLP#Controversial material. The tag should apply to the removal edits, not the addition of sourced content. Request admins correct the revision history tags accordingly. FancyFlippers (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is premature - you opened talk page discussions about this (on both talk pages) not ten minutes before you posted here. Would you like to explain why you restored the disputed content on both pages, citing these discussions, without waiting for the user's response? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I will note per WP:CUIPDISCLOSE, checkusers will not publicly connect a user account to an IP, especially not on the grounds that LaffyTaffer has reverted your edit. To be rather honest, the above does not at all prove that she has a COI. There are plenty of non-malicious reasons that these specific edits may have been reverted, such as being overly detailed (this edit trimmed a four-paragraph section that was based on a single source). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge the timing issue and will allow discussion to proceed. However, regarding sourcing: the removed content is based on The Roys Report's April 2026 investigation (multiple named sources) and May 2026 coverage of the Holmberg lawsuit, both reliable sources per WP:RS. The removal across both related articles within minutes, citing "unsourced" when sources are present, is why I requested checkuser review—admins can assess privately whether there's a pattern worth investigating. I'm not claiming to have proven anything; I'm asking they verify. I also never asked for the admins to publicly reveal the user's IP, that is a strawman argument. FancyFlippers (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are using AI, please stop. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think they're using AI?--v/r - TP 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you look further down the discussion, I've included some links and analysis which I feel demonstrate likely AI-use. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing discussion to proceed, milord.

You literally just asked for a user to be checked against a specific IP address range identifying their location. If a checkuser took the specific action you requested -- and they wouldn't -- the result would either confirm or reject a user using a specific IP address. So it's disingenuous to suggest that ChatGPT you weren't asking for an IP address to be revealed. If you were right, that is precisely the result that would have happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @FancyFlippers: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is really giving me AI vibes but whatever, your edits that were reverted were simply not sourced properly. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. LLMs adopt the tone of a criminal defence lawyer at a parole hearing. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an excellent analogy. Or, more generally, of a lawyer who knows the case is hopeless but is following their client's instructions anyway. (I have the t-shirt.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The specific complaint of "[improper] removal of sourced content" also crops up again and again in LLM-generated ANI complaints, as though content being sourced provides it with some kind of protection against being removed. Athanelar (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the edits in question, it really looks AI-generated due to several instances of WP:RO3, headings and the phrasing used.

I'll also note that most of this is unsourced; there are links to two websites from the same author in the same year, yet the middle two sources are just to that author and the year - no indication of which article they mean or if it's a completely different one, whilst the second half has no sources whatsoever. I've reverted on this basis. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(Responding on my alt since i accidentally self blocked LaffyTaffer for a month while WP:EUI) On review of the reverts in question, this was exactly why I had removed the content in the first place. The rest of the removal on Craig Groeschel was due to the remaining content being seemingly unrelated to the subject himself as opposed to his company. I havent reviewed the current state of the articles, but trust that the editors who got there from this thread did a good job of cleaning things up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaffierTaffer (talk • contribs)

I'll reiterate that I dont have a COI with the subjects, nor am I in any way related to any TA's on that page. My only use of TAs has been to make edit requests on pages where I do have a COI in order to avoid linking this account to my real life identity.

Won't comment on potential AI use here as I'm naturally going to be biased as the one who was brought to ANI LaffierTaffer💬(they/she) 16:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The removed content was sourced to The Roys Report (April/May 2026). LaffyTaffer's stated reason was formatting/sourcing issues, those are editorial questions, not vandalism. LaffyTaffer would've been fine to edit and clean up further, but chose to do the action on both pages that... buries unfavorable reporting against these individuals. The "The articles describing this guy's assault aren't relevant to the person himself" is dishonest *at best*. This is why I've asked the admins, with the capability to look at LaffyTaffer's IP Address history, to make the assessment.

I'm satisfied that admins can review the actual information and make their own assessment. FancyFlippers (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To make this very explicit: I am LaffyTaffer. This is an alternative account. LaffierTaffer💬(they/she) 15:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Not totally sure about AI in the text itself, but the edit summary sure does resemble a straight-down-the-line 2026 AI edit summary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am on vacation until Tuesday (maybe Monday) and wont be able to give this thread the proper attention until then. For now I will note that I do not have a COI with these subjects and this ANI thread is the first time any of these issues have been raised with me. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 01:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I will furthermore use the wikibreak enforcer to impose a self block on incidental editing in the meantime to avoid giving the impression that Im ignoring this thread. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

OP hasn't substantiated any of their charges or presented any convincing argument that this isn't just a content dispute. If this isn't sufficient for a boomerang, this discussion is a waste of ANI's time, and the OP should be reminded to assume good faith and this is a collaborative project that is based on discussion and consensus, not an adversarial one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Their edit history isn't great and makes me even more certain that they're using AI - for example The Church at BattleCreek is quite a mess right now & needs fixing.

There are AI responses in the middle & external links in the body instead of inline citations - I very much doubt a human would have made this edit.

Granted, the original wasn't much better but at least it made more sense. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I gave it a quick tidy-up, still needs work but it looks like a proper article now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I completely missed the two edit summaries of their edit warring "Restored sourced content per talk discussion," even though no discussion actually happened (discussion opened and then restored like 20 minutes later after no discussion). Between this and the clear, repeated use of LLM/chatbots, I really think @FancyFlippers needs to address this issue or we may need to discuss editing restrictions. Best to address this now with them only having a dozen or so edits under their belt and no long-term habits formed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, leaving [REMOVED: "gifted leader, motivator, organizer" - marketing language without sourcing] and [REMOVED: attendance figures from 2006 - citations needed, metrics unverifiable] in the article body not only show that AI is being used, but that the output isn't even being checked before publication.

I'm concerned that most of their edits are coming from AI so they're not properly comprehending what they're writing. This would also explain the "per Talk discussion" - the AI knows there should be a discussion, but it doesn't know that one hasn't taken place yet. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, AI is the kinder guess, I think. Because if it's not AI, then it would look like someone who just doesn't care about their conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Given the AI use (I knew something was off with their strangely polished, yet argumentative, reply just four minutes after I replied yesterday), I would suggest a warning to the OP about AI use and WP:BLPCRIME. I really don't see anything actionable here against LaffyTaffer. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning that they (FancyFlippers) only have 17 edits, all of which are connected to Life.Church or adjacent articles. The vast majority of which is to add large swaths of information that have mostly been reverted. I would be interested to know if they had a WP:COI in this territory. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sam Wood Rp serial edit warring and gaming

The aforementioned user has consistently edit warred on Superpower.

In April, an rfc on the talk page concluded with editors be allowed to add China as a superpower along with the United States.

since then, @Sam Wood RP: has consistently tried to introduce concepts like “military superpower” to try and skirt around the rfc and has engaged in edit warring with me and other users.

On June 18 @McSly: reverted their edit as it was unsourced. Sam Wood RP then reverted McSly for which I then stepped in and reverted Sam Wood. On June 19 there was no activity from Sam Wood on the page but June 20 re-adds their June 18th edit with citations to which I reverted as their edits are still not supported by the discussions on the talk page. Today they then revert again. To me, the user seems to be editing in a way to avoid violating the 3RR and is gaming the system.

When I went to warn the user on the talk page, I noticed that McSly has already warned them on there in May for edit warring on the same page.

This user was previously made aware of edit warring and appears to be edit warring in a way that games the system by dancing around the 24 hour window. PaulRKil (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of sources.

Besides I did not introduce concepts like "military superpower" it is an existing concept in the field of international relations I'm starting to doubt that you have read yet a single book on the topic.

Additionally, there is no consensus in the field of international relations regarding China's status as a superpower.

Regardless, according to definition given by William T.R. Fox and Nicholas Spykman (the scholars who actually came up with the term "Superpower") a superpower must posses the ability to wage war anywhere in the world, I've provided quotes and sources on the talk page of the Superpower page.

To me personally this looks like you are biased. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring resumed

It seems that Sam Wood Rp has resumed edit warring after their block expired: - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Give me a rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock Sam Wood Rp (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you actually think that essay refers to a situation analogous to your situation, it's just another bit of evidence that you're unsuited to this project. You're just edit-warring, clearly against consensus, and doing the exact same nonsense you were doing that got you blocked. There are generally two choices a Wikipedia editor can make when it comes to their interactions on Wikipedia:

• Work constructively with the community and respect consensus
• Fuck off

The Wikipedia community is an open-minded one, and would be more than happy to help you out with whatever option you prefer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm absolutely in favor of a page block for Sam Wood Rp, if not a sensible topic ban (the concept of a superpower? geopolitics?). While it's not yet my first choice as I'd prefer to see this editor reform their ways, I'm certainly not strongly against a stiffer sanction than either. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I see how thoroughly you are following the wikipedia rules and how respectful you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FUCKOFF is instructive. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That essay is about experienced editors not explaining policies properly to new editors, but that essay doesn't replace or supercede the consensus policy. You're reinstating edits without an agreed consensus on the article Talk page, after you've previously been told about consensus - the edit warring notices you've had explain that you should ...use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved.

Your first edit after being unblocked was to the same article you were blocked for edit warring over, without without returning to the Talk page to gain consensus.

As soon as you were reverted, that was a massive red flag that you were falling into the same bad habits as before and needed to step back.

You made an edit, it was reverted, you reverted that, then were reverted and you've reverted it back. Do you see a pattern? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Clearly since at least 3 people are actively disputing this there is no consensus. Who decides that there is a consensus? Why does Wikipedia decide to publish editor's opinion specifically on the Superpower article? ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The solution here is exceptionally simple - you discuss it on the article talk page, or at WP:DR if necessary. You don't edit war. Disputing a consensus is perfectly fine, and indeed healthy. Edit warring is not. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to understand the policy and how consensus is usually formed, you can find out more at Wikipedia:Consensus and the "See also" pages at the bottom. This current discussion is about edit warring/reversions whilst the process was still ongoing. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked him from the Superpower page: he can still try to get consensus on talk. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sam Wood Rp continued disruptive editing, bad faith summaries, and edit warring after first warning.

This user has continued to engage in disruptive behavior on the Superpower page regarding the inclusion of China as a superpower. Once they were given a block regarding edit warring, they then proceeded to participate in the same behavior.

Additionally, the user has resorted to bad faith editing summaries. When I wrote "Nobody has agreed to making these types of changes. Please stop." they reverted that change and copypasted my summary.

It is clear to me that this user is not interested in good faith discussions on how to edit the article and as myself and other users have pushed back against them in the talk page, they are increasingly becoming combative. PaulRKil (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

PaulRKil FYI since there's an open report, I've merged your duplicate here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not see this, so thank you. PaulRKil (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ~2026-33640-28

~2026-33640-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AIV report was declined.

This TA has been editing for a few weeks now, making largely unhelpful edits including RETAIN-related disruption (, , ), adding fake "Further information" hatnotes linking to articles that don't have further information (, , , ), and adding barely-comprehensible gibberish to articles , , , ).

This is all clearly disruptive, and the several unintelligible edit summaries suggest a CIR issue as well. --Sable232 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 31H, although imagine we'll be in INDEF territory Star Mississippi 01:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the same - this does not inspire much confidence. --Sable232 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks from Crowreeve

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Crowreeve added an excessive number of cleanup tags here and here. When warned they said, "You are pathetic to ask for donations. You worthless and outdated pseudo-source. It's not surprising that Wikipedia is a rotting corpse. And you have the gall to beg for hand-outs. Fuck you, you pathetic piece of shit." (diff) Seafarerer might be an alt account of theirs, as they made similar edits (diff) but only once. Streetr4 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:RoseFaulkner1930.jpeg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone undo the rev-deletion of the first version of this image. I want to move it to Commons as this image, originally in an American magazine from 1930, is now in the public domain. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done but not really an ANI issue - please use WP:REFUND for any future undelete requests. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deletion and edit warring on Chinese Taipei national baseball team

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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.

Multiple users have been repeatedly removing 44,567 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Users involved:

User:Kim Nito — repeatedly removing sourced content User:162 etc. — joined in removing content

Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360772787&oldid=1360770014

Current stable version before removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360770014

~2026-36449-49 (talk)

Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.

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.

User User:162 etc. has removed 28,545 bytes of sourced content from Philippines national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, claiming the boxscores belong only in tournament articles. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Diffs of removal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&diff=1360852597&oldid=1360771570

Current stable version to preserve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360852597

~2026-36549-39 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-36549-39, when starting discussions about other users on this noticeboard, you are required to notify them as mentioned on the top of this page. I have done so for you. I see that you opened a discussion on the talk page of the today at 01:13 UTC, the user's talk page at 01:14 UTC and here at 01:16 UTC. Do you think it would be best to allow the WP:BRD cycle play out correctly here and await a response from the user before starting a thread here, or is there more discussions to this that I may have missed? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for notifying the user. Yes, this is not isolated — User:162 etc. has removed content from multiple articles in the same pattern today, including Japan national baseball team (61,456 bytes removed) and Chinese Taipei national baseball team (44,567 bytes removed). User:Kim Nito has also been involved in removing content from the Chinese Taipei article. This appears to be a coordinated mass removal campaign across multiple baseball articles.

~2026-36549-39 (talk)

Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.

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.

User User:162 etc. has removed 61,456 bytes of sourced content from Japan national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, claiming the boxscores belong only in tournament articles. This is now a pattern of mass deletion across multiple national baseball team articles including Philippines national baseball team and Chinese Taipei national baseball team, making this a coordinated effort to remove sourced content from baseball articles. Diffs of removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_baseball_team&diff=prev&oldid=1360771173 Current stable version to preserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360854129 ~2026-36549-39 (talk)

Also — the fact that 162 etc. is now deleting content from multiple articles in the same pattern significantly strengthens your case. This is no longer just a content dispute — it looks like a coordinated mass removal campaign. This is exactly the kind of thing ANI admins take seriously.

~2026-36549-39 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36549-39, please stop using a chatbot/AI/LLM to communicate. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm almost certain they used AI to reply to me here, hopefully they won't continue to use it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

User -39 blocked for block evasion, editing on the page they were p-blocked from for edit warring (as user -49 above, among others). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hauwa8757

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hauwa8757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has, despite many messages on their talk page and a 31 hour block, continues to make disruptive edits/edits against MOS by making section headings all caps and converting paragraph sections into headers and they've done so across many pages. There's also an instance of using an LLM source but that's neither here nor there.

They also appeared to be repeating the same editing pattern immediately after their block was lifted ().

Given that they haven't responded to their talk page I don't know if it's a case of them not knowing it exists (WP:TCHY) or if it's WP:IDHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netstars22 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by ~2026-36295-67

~2026-36295-67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has repeatedly changed the numbers on EMD F3, EMD F7, EMD FP7, and EMD FP9 without explanation, despite warnings on their talk page to at least provide an edit summary. They also did a WP:3RR violation on EMD FP9, though they were not warned at the time so I didn't pursue 3RR sanctions. 4300streetcar (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

6 TAs are editing from the same IP, all making these disruptive number changes (although not on the same pages). The full list is below:

~2026-36295-67

~2026-36223-84

~2026-30475-47

~2026-27500-76

~2026-25385-03

~2026-19999-76

Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 15:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the ~2026-36295-67 account. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

User Kim Nito

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Kim Nito removed 29,227 bytes of sourced content from this article on June 23, 2026 without valid justification. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360726763 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36484-72 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Slider12, see investigation)

Edit warring and mass deletion on Chinese Taipei national baseball team by User:Kim Nito

User User:Kim Nito has been repeatedly removing 39,658 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36449-49 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Slider12, see investigation)

Edit warring and mass deletion on Chinese Taipei national baseball team by User:Kim Nito

User User:Kim Nito has been repeatedly removing 39,658 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. This is not an isolated incident — Kim Nito has made multiple removals today alone. Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224

Previous stable version before removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360753829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36449-49 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Slider12, see investigation)

My decision to revert your edit stemmed from the fact that you had reverted the edit of a trusted user without providing a valid justification. You seem to have overreacted to the situation when I had only reverted your edits twice. I will no longer interfere with that article. Do whatever you edit and I won't interfere, as I do not wish to engage in an edit war too, but perhaps you should also discuss with 162 etc.. Best! – Kim Nito (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

another TA adding it the previous day doesn't constitute a stable version, frankly. Morwen (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Three reports from two TA's that appear to be the same editor. Regardless, this is a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI - this noticeboard should be a last resort, not the first.

The TA has hit three reverts after being reverted by different editors.

@~2026-36449-49/@~2026-36484-72 please stop reverting and discuss your changes on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

...and we hit revert #4 whilst I was writing that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I made the original removal of the content, and I stand by it. Disagreement should be resolved by discussion at the talkpage, not edit warring. I've now made similar edits at the Philippines and Japan team articles per the same rationale. 162 etc. (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a (IMO possibly AI-generated) response and directed them to the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Quick update: ~2026-36449-49 was p-blocked from Chinese Taipei national baseball team for 24hrs, evaded under ~2026-36549-39 and the latter of which has been fully blocked.

ChatGPT The TA did go to the Talk page, but only after they had edited the article they were blocked from.

They've also used the new TA to reinstate all their previous edits and post further AI-generated complaints on the Talk page of the respective articles. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

@Blue-Sonnet While I agree that admins should be a last resort for content disputes, this user (on their third temporary account) is consistently using a non-reliable source and assuming information that is not present. The only source is from 4 years ago because, surprise surprise, in a country where football is not professional, they do not write about it every day. Also, there is no date associated with the erieri article, which doesn't mean it's 2026 and therefore "newer".

At what point can we get admins involved, and what could they do in this situation? Phil 06:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope people would try talking to them first and see if it's something that could be solved through educating them - I don't know what their previous accounts are or what's been done about that before this thread was raised. Has anyone tried this with them before now? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I have posted a message on their talk page asking them to stop as their source doesn't state one way or the other the status of a club. But as it's a temporary account, they can just use another (as they did after their first round of edits). I have also mentioned in the change messages of the articles concerned that the source is not reliable, that clubs are not professional. It's been removed from several clubs before with the same justifications, and that's always stuck - but this user seems (so far) adamant to insist every club they edit are professional with a source that only mentions an average salary from an unknown date and sample size.

I am still reading through all the Wikipedia processes for this kind of thing as it's the first time this has happened for me, so if I'm doing something wrong, or not doing something, please let me know. Phil 07:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, there had been a discussion at User talk:Philk84, but the TA then decided to escalate here. There is also now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Luxembourgish_football_question which is hopefully a better location to gain consensus. Philk84 admins can get involved if a consensus was found but a user kept insisting their interpretation was correct. Also admins could get involved if it turned into edit warring. KylieTastic (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and sorry I wasn't clear earlier! I was looking on the article and TA Talk pages for any discussion before the ANI report, but multiple pages, TA's and no diffs can make things rather confusing. It looks like I missed Philk84's page out whilst looking.

It does look like the discussion is finally in the right place and I'm hopeful the TA (and everyone involved) will be receptive to consensus - the fact that they're asking for advice is a good sign of that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://wsfc7.com/football-salary-in-europe-by-league-from-amateur-to-professional-2026/

for the record they fell in lower pro category... institute asked to add research source as well ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The TA is spamming articles with this unreliable source, that does not make any mention of Luxembourg, let alone any of the individual clubs. They are being disruptive, and unwilling to wait for a consesus to form that supports their POV. Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/luxembourg-s-football-league-struggling-to-attract-talent-says-agent/86373714.html

This source by mr Phil proves my edits, or it is private agent opinion, anyway accept club's right to be lower professional, above semi pro and under mid pro (instead discuss more encyclopedic descriptions)

final reply on this, thanks ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is you are being disruptive and edit warring. Discuss the issue at WT:FOOTY and wait for support BEFORE making changes. shows that you are not here to build a consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Welp, it's definitely an ANI issue now - looks like my optimism was unfortunately unfounded. Hopefully the underlying IP block will stop this from escalating further. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

User is using an array of Temp Accounts, the latest of which is making some very worrying comments : i will keep returning until committing suicide. Spike 'em (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is very rapidly becoming a conduct issue. It appears that Ad Orientem has blocked the range for a year, as they continued this as User talk:~2026-35751-35. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs on their User page it only says the block is for 48h. I assume the year block is reported elsewhere? Phil 09:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It's on the page for the underlying IP address, but I cannot link that here as it requires WP:TAIV access to view the IP address, which is consistent among these TAs that this editor has been using. Anyone else with access can at least verify that this is the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I understand that this is kind of annoying and I am strongly against this WMF policy change. But I'm also strongly against me getting into hot water! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

they are back : ~2026-35858-44 (talk · contribs) Spike 'em (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked TA and underlying /24 range. They may be back as it's likely they may have access to the /16 range but that looks like it would start to affect others. KylieTastic (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Spike 'em: They returned as ~2026-36224-75 (talk · contribs) - is there nothing we can do except make a new block each time they make a TA? They also appear to be making some very disturbing comments over on the Project Football discussion

Phil 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Spike 'em. Please can you help me? They are writing on my talk page in other Wikipedias: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhilk84&diff=30718887&oldid=30715323

But more importantly, they are posting identifying information which I believe is not permitted and removed on a previous page by KylieTastic? https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Notifications/Article_reminders&diff=prev&oldid=30718889

Please can you ask for this to be removed? I'm not sure what the relevance is to that topic, but I believe this user has it out for me personally as they do not appear to be targeting the other Users who have assisted me in removing their unfounded claims. Phil 06:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Phil, as that is over on meta there is nothing I can do over here, the sites are all separate. I had one similar message over on my commons page. I see that they have been globally blocked now. You can always post to meta:Steward requests/Global in future. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also had a message at Commons; I can only hope this person gets bored soon. They obviously know enough to check on the sister projects which indicates they are likely a long-term disruptive editor. Spike 'em (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Mostly these types of people give up if no one responds to them. Hopefully they will get board soon. If not we have several options we can take to stop them, like blacklisting that particular url they are obsessed with, or maybe temporary semi-protection of target articles. @Philk84 I requested meta oversight for the users doxing attempts, which have just been processed. If you have any similar issues you can request oversight for the particular site by following the information on meta:Oversight_policy. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic @Spike 'em @Blue-Sonnet Unfortunately, they have returned once more: ~2026-36696-51 (talk · contribs) Phil 07:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thankfully they've already been blocked - if they pop up again, you can report to WP:AIV with a short explanation & link to the original blocked account. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:53, 25 June 2026 (UTC)