Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Report personal attack

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

---

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

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

I’m asking for administrator/community review of a personal attack by User:Walter Ego on Talk:Fish and chips.

In this comment, they wrote: “Wow, you piece of shit…” followed by “I don’t think you will be allowed to behave like this much longer.”

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fish_and_chips#c-Roxy_the_dog-20260606171900-FJLGreen-20260606155200

I appreciate that my own earlier wording in the thread was strongly phrased, and I could have expressed my concern more carefully. However, I do not think that justifies a direct personal insult. I also found the closing line—“I don’t think you will be allowed to behave like this much longer”—to read as threatening, or at the very least hostile and escalatory.

I have not responded in kind. I’d appreciate review under WP:NPA and guidance on how best to de-escalate the discussion.

FJLGreen (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm slightly paraphrasing here, but: "I called someone a neo-Nazi, and they called me a piece of shit, so I'd like to report them for a personal attack."

I suggest you retract this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This is beyond paraphrasing. I indicated such interests because of the repeated exclusion of marginalised minority involvement in what has become known as a “Great British” tradition. I indicated that I suspected prejudiced behaviour and they continued without explanation. Even still, as I said above I regret not using more tact, but I stand by my suspicions of intent. WHATEVER HAPPENED the facts remained that it should not be allowed to call someone “a piece of shit” on Wikipedia. FJLGreen (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, you did far worse, FJLGreen. You've been told by multiple editors to retract your accusation. I will personally support a community ban for you if you decide against this. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry—to be clear, are we saying it’s ok to call others a piece of shit on Wikipedia? Forgetting about what I may have done for a moment. Is that behaviour ok? FJLGreen (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't forget about the reason they did it. If it was unprovoked, then no it's not OK. It wasn't unprovoked. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes or no, is it ok or not in your opinion? FJLGreen (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked you from Fish and chips, not just for the edit-warring, but for threatening to report other editors for alleged anti-semitism when they reverted you. That's not acceptable. Go and find something else to edit, please, and don't repeat this behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple sources already present on that page that verify the information I was inserting—that was already existent on the page, I just included it in the summary.

When there is a sustained pattern of reversion when it comes to mentioning the involvement of a minority group without explanation, it is reasonable to suspect prejudice against said group.

If you believe this is incorrect and there is 100% no possibility that antisemitism wasn’t an element in this, please feel free to demonstrate. FJLGreen (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

No on needs to prove "there is "100% no possibility that antisemitism wasn’t an element in this" which is a double negative by the way, so I don't think you said what you meant. If you are going to allege there is antisemitism, you need to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. If you do not have the evidence, you claiming that there was is a personal attack and so you need to withdraw your unsupported claim. Nil Einne (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, so now all of a sudden you're having LLMs write your responses for you? Better see WP:AITALK. Ravenswing 19:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Wow. You compared them to a well-known far-right Islamophobe with a string of criminal convictions, and you're surprised they reacted like that? They are actually quite right - do that again and you won't be able to behave like that, because you'll be blocked. I'd suggest an apology might be in order to the two editors you defamed, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) FJLGreen, your comment was way over the line. I think very many people would be deeply offended by being personally compared to Tommy Robinson. I'd have preferred if the people you insulted just disengaged, but frankly I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a WP:BOOMERANG block on you here. On what possible basis did you accuse editors of that page of being extreme right wing provocateurs? Note I haven't lived in the UK for several decades and haven't the slightest clue why Fish and chips might be associated with the extreme right, but suspect it's at least possible. --Yamla (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yamla Well, the OP has been edit-warring to try to claim that Fish and chips is a Jewish dish (yes, there's Jewish background to it, as the article says, but that's not the point) and when they are reverted, they've been threatening to report the other editors for anti-semitism. So I've blocked them from that article, and if they carry on with any more of that nonsense I suspect it will be a full block. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, antisemitism is nonsense. Brilliant. FJLGreen (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

And that really does sum up the problem here, doesn't it? I didn't say that "anti-semitism was nonsense", I said that your claims that other editors were anti-semitic had no evidence. Which it doesn't. And let's not mention the issue that you compared them to Tommy Robinson, who is not an anti-semite but an Islamophobe, and yes, I think we are verging on nonsense. I think we are being trolled here. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson is a verified antisemite. Please check your facts.

You used the word “nonsense” to dismissively refer to the possibility of prejudice on Wikipedia instead of actively engaging in a conversation about it.

There’s no place for trolling when it comes to minorities—that’s exactly why I highlighted the actions that I did FJLGreen (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

That's this Tommy Robinson? OK. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

What is nonsense is claiming that it is antisemitic to state that your edit doesn't properly summarize the information and is undue for the lead. That is assuming bad faith. assume good faith is a basic requirement here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I assumed bad faith because of the repeated nature of the behaviour without alternative explanation—even after I questioned by saying that I suspected prejudice. There was an opening for an explanation but none was given. FJLGreen (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There you go. You spotted the problem: your first question was about prejudice, rather than asking: "What's wrong with my addition?" — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I amended the addition after asking that question and it was still rejected after numerous redrafts and re-verifications—almost like whatever I said, however I phrased it didn’t matter. Check the edit history if you don’t believe me. FJLGreen (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose a site-wide ban on FJLGreen. Their behaviour has been abhorrent and at this point, indistinguishable from trolling. Time to put a stop to it. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the silencing of minority voices. That’s the truth. I just stood up for a marginalised community. I didn’t call anyone names, someone else did to me. But I am apparently being targeted here. FJLGreen (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You can still (just) row back from this, but you're getting very close to the point of no return. Your call. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Why can no one seem to actually engage in conversation about this? It’s like everyone has made their mind up without actually attempting to find new understanding or actually enter a dialogue. This is not what Wikipedia should be about—it should be about conversation, not exclusion. FJLGreen (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The conversation blew up because you approached it as a battle, not a discussion. Assume good faith and you then can have a calm conversation. Labelling other people as you did is like throwing "Hitler" into a conversation. After that, no one talks about anything but Hitler. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t bring Hitler into this conversation. That is uncalled for and insensitive.

I was attacked as soon as I opened this discussion—please read up if you think otherwise. I would loved to have had a calm conversation. FJLGreen (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned Hitler intentionally. That was akin to your Tommy Robinson comment. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Support Ban Hey @FJLGreen, that's a lot of wild, uncivil accusations you're making. Can you prove any of them? Because this is stepping into possible libel, which, mind you, is an actual criminal offense.

P.S. Please don't call people neo-nazis without any evidence | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 20:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Please be careful here. WP:NLT applies. --Yamla (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support ban - clearly NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 18:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is a lynch mob. FJLGreen (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  This kind of response is precisely why you will end up banned. GiantSnowman 19:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding GiantSnowman, this kind of response actually justifies your ban. -- Least Action (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked OP for 31 hours. That will give them time to reflect on the conversation here. If they return with more attacks, an indef is likely. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per WP:BITE. This account had 20 edits at the time they filed this report. Education rather than removal is preferable. I do have minor concerns about the level of familiarity they have with policy given 20 edits, but per WP:PRECOCIOUS that's not prima facie a sign of puppetry.

However, FJLGreen, when you return from your block, you need to listen to what people are telling you. No, calling someone a piece of shit is not generally okay, but context matters. That's why "self-defense" can excuse someone from the generally not-okay act of murder. Note in WP:NPA, one of the bullets is Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous people. (See also Godwin's law.) and again Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (Emphasis original) Swearing is not automatically a personal attack, and "You piece of shit" is more tame than suggesting another editor's motives are more aligned with a Tommy Robinson rally. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This would be a fair point if the editor was not ignoring all advice and continuing to double/tripling down. GiantSnowman 19:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:BITE feels more appropriate when it's Wikipedia-specific things. They're presumably not a newbie at interacting with other human beings. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know several people who believe tactics like this "win" a conversation. And, as always, context matters: this sort of thing is tame for most internet fora, apparently appropriate in political discourse, but is inappropriate here. People can be taught to make that distinction, but not if they're CBanned in their first 100 edits because they were upset and hadn't been given the time to settle down before a CBAN was proposed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Boomerang ban (see comment below) the other involved party here (User:Roxy the dog) has a LENGTHY history of bans, including at least one reversed site-wide ban. I find it highly odd to be discussing a ban on the brand new editor while not discussing the other involved party who has a lengthy rap sheet of harassing other editors. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• You want to ban an editor who responded how many of us would have responded after being attacked for no reason and being compared to a far-right Islamophobe criminal? I can assure you that's not happening. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  You want to ban an editor who responded how many of us would have responded after being attacked for no reason and being compared to a far-right Islamophobe criminal? In that case, many of you then have a serious problem. Someone else's incivility is not an excuse to act uncivilly in return. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've had fairly substantial disagreements with Roxy but I do not believe any action would be wise. Clearly Roxy should not have said that, they should have warned the editor, opened and ANI or just ignored it. But what FJLGreen did is so extreme in comparison and what Roxy did is mild enough that it would be a bad idea to take any action against Roxy. It will just lead to a possibly long and heated discussion at ANI where Roxy will probably be unblocked and might lead to them incorrectly thinking it's okay to do similar things in situations where editors are much less likely to turn a blind eye. And even if the block isn't overturned, it will be seen by many as injustice and proof people are unfair to Roxy and that Roxy's editing doesn't demonstrate a problematic pattern. In other words, if action is going to be taken against Roxy, this is not the case where it should happen from. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I still would like to get their response in another day or two. At the moment, the string of the provocation may be too fresh, as they've basically said they'd do it again, which is contrary to our guidelines. If they are serious about their intent to always respond to insults with insults, that seems incompatible with a collaborative project. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

But Roxy knows better, and his response was not appropriate. Consider this at the least an informal warning and remember, Roxy, you're back because of your promise to behave better. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Having re-reviewed the edits here, I'm not seeing anything to justify Roxy the dog calling a brand new editor a piece of shit. I would also point out that harrasing other editors who have voiced their opinion on this matter as Roxy the dog did both here and here. @Rsjaffe: at what point is enough, enough? Roxy is getting ANOTHER warning? How many times do they get to be warned? THIRTEEN blocks including 5 for personal attacks? There is NOTHING that justifies calling another editor a piece of shit, regardless of what they have done and an editor with a lengthy history of personal attack blocks knows this full well. @Voorts: stated when unblocking Roxy that The community has determined that those promises, as well as Roxy's growth and commitment to civil discussion, are sufficient to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. I would say that this behavior shows NO growth has occurred. Whether the other involved party is a troll or not, Roxy clearly has not grown up at all since their last block and doesn't understand that you can simply walk away and ignore someone. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The response was not appropriate but was understandable. I do not see any action warranted other than a firm word. GiantSnowman 20:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Ok I'm starting to think I am genuinely missing something... How does calling someone anti-semitic make calling them back a piece of shit "understandable"? Is there some revdel edit that I'm not seeing? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has been hidden, you're just not on the same page as the rest of us with this, which is fine. See what Black Kite said above as a succinct summary. GiantSnowman 21:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I note that Roxy seems to believe I misunderstood the words linked in my above diff. They do this by telling me to "learn to read" and ban me from their talk page rather than explain. They also seem to be refusing to come to ANI to discuss their behavior at all, per here. I agree that their response is understandable, which is why I'd like to hear from them in a couple days, because as you yourself say, it was not appropriate and right now they seem to be doubling and tripling down... just like FJLGreen was before they were blocked for it. Do we extend more slack to a newbie than an editor with a long history of incivility? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I am 100% with EducatedRedneck here. How come we are coming down like a ton of bricks on a brand new editor while cutting so much slack to an editor who has been blocked 13 times for this same behavior? Roxy is lashing out at everyone who disagrees with them including the link EDucated posted above as well as coming to my talk page to attack me here for daring to voice my 2 cents. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support block on FJLGreen, warn Roxy: Roxy has been around long enough to know not to throw gasoline on the fire with name-calling and should be reminded that we expect more. That said, it would probably take a lot of restraint that I don't have to not punch back at something obviously intended as a veiled "you're a Nazi" accusation. FJLGreen's current block is probably sufficient from a preventative perspective, with any evidence of not getting the message being sufficient to hit the indef button. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Pbritti genuine question here. Have you consulted Roxy's lengthy block history? I am honestly curious how you feel that a warning will ever be heard by someone with 13 blocks including 5 for personal attacks? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Genuine answer: I was surprised Roxy was welcomed back and don't think I would've undone the ban if it were up to me today. That said, I certainly don't think a snappy response to being accused of being equivalent to a Nazi is the thing that should be held up as representative of anyone. I'm not eager to ban editors for stuff like that. I'm not eager to reward people who come to Wikipedia and provoke confrontation. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Roxy is from another culture. I don't think he fully grasps Western taboos, such as the Armenian genocide, transgenders, and what shouldn't be said. E.g. I didn't knew that "shut up" is offensive. I knew it means to be silent. Because these are things that are hard to learn from books/TV. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Speaking of cultural sensitivity, it's generally frowned upon to use transgenders; other constructions like transgender people are preferable. The English language has a peculiar tendency to turn certain plurals into slurs. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to explain: In the US, the use of plurals in this way is targeted and has a long history going back at least a century. When a person or group speaks of "the blacks, the Jews, and the gays", they are implying that these people are not individuals, but monolithic entities who operate like an insectoid hive mind, and share a singular goal of taking over the country from white, Christian, heterosexuals. Many of the people who use plurals like this may not immediately recognize the problem. One thing I noticed was that with the rise of the Tea Party movement, these pejorative plurals were brought back into mainstream American culture. They had been suppressed for the most part from around 1992 to about 2010. With their resurgence came the usual suspects, who slithered out from under the rocks where they had been hiding. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• There's no need to engage in false equivalence by blaming Roxy, and false equivalence is what that would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Time for a list of the best hits from Roxy from the last 24 hours:
  • My response was measured and appropriate
  • You should learn to read
  • are you poking your nose in, your awfully naive contribution at ANI
  • Northern Moonlight 00:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Ban of FJLGreen (talk · contribs). Their talk-page activities show that they're not going to listen, and anything we say will work for the contrary, as they have made the community their enemy. -- Least Action (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  If we are to propose a ban for FJLGreen (talk · contribs), should we take this to WP:AN? @Yamla, Zackmann08, Black Kite, and GiantSnowman: -- Least Action (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, this is the right board for the community to discuss bans & blocks. They've already been blocked for 31 hours so can you clarify what type of ban/block you are proposing beyond this, if anything? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  See comment below. -- Least Action (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  If not site ban, at least a topic ban from Jewish culture, broadly construed.As they have created a sock, I'm proposing a site wide community ban. -- Least Action (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Since this apparently wasn't them but an impersonator, I think we should see whether the current temporary block is enough to dissuade them from doing it again. If it continues after it expires, they've had more than enough warning and an indef may be appropriate. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding. btw what's solidarity? -- Least Action (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Click on it and you'll find out. ~2026-33656-46 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have strong doubts that they can reform although it's possible they will voluntarily leave. But I agree just leading this be handled by a regular admin indefinite if they do not reform is the best solution. I trust admins to handle this with minimal fuss. That said, FJLGreen's refusal to accept they've provided no evidence of antisemitism or prejudice is getting close to enough for me that if this we to developed into more normal ban discussion, I'd probably support it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  But I doubt whether they'll cease all fuckery and just leave. -- Least Action (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  I honestly think you're right, but at least this way we've given them every possible chance and any subsequent indef will be much more justified. On top of that, any block appeal would have to navigate the massive hurdle of being given a last chance and throwing it away. If they carry on after this, they absolutely should not be here.

  It's their move now, and we're all watching. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Least Action: See WP:SOLIDARITY to answer that question. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be textbook WP:LLMANI, by the way. It's small fry compared to the other issues, but thought I'd mention it since nobody else had. Athanelar (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero says that the posts are highly likely to be AI-generated. Supporting this. -- Least Action (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Indef FJL as normal admin action, stern warn Roxy that we need to be civil at all times, even to those uncivil to you. FJL's behaviour is clearly bad, but even then please don't call people "shit"~2026-33691-46 (talk)

Joe Job disruption

• Sock FJLGreen has now created the sock User:Chipped up fisheronies. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 02:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Reported to SRG. -- Least Action (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This has to be the last straw, right? Clearly FJLGreen is only here to cause as much trouble and drama as possible and there is no need to indulge this behaviour any further. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't a joejob, I'd agree an indefinite for both accounts should be the minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That smells like a Joe job. Particularly when you consider the time zone I believe @FJLGreen is in (GMT) (now about 4am) and the odd username. The talk page behavior is also completely different. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

What's a Joe job? -- Least Action (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

A malicious third party trying to cause more problems for @FJLGreen by pretending to be them and misbehaving. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

We have some bad actors that tend to do that at AN/I. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Had the same question... Had to google that one... "an internet sabotage tactic where a spammer sends massive amounts of spam or malicious emails while spoofing the sender address of an innocent third party". Basically that Sock might not be a sock, but someone trying to LOOK like they are a sock... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, the sock is a sock; we just don’t know yet whose hand is working the puppet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Linking SPI case here. The hexagrams show that it is not a joe job though. -- Least Action (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The hexagram comment is not useful or appropriate here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. -- Least Action (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, just FYI, there's an SPI open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FJLGreen with a CheckUser request endorsed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 04:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Ban both as it would appear that FJLGreen is now creating socks I am withdrawing any support I might have possibly had for their situation. I maintain that they are not the only one at fault here however and fully support a ban on both involved parties. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can ban discussions be WP:SNOWed? -- Least Action (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  An admin (or experienced non-admin) will close the thread when appropriate, but it's usually best to wait until there are unlikely to be any new developments & everything has run it's course. Since this is a pretty new report and there's an active SPI, it might be best to wait and see what happens with that first. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Least Action: the threshold for WP:SNOW is far higher that what we currently have. There is no rush here. If they continue to vandalize, bans can and will be implemented by admins until a clear consensus is reached. They obviously aren't helping their case at this point. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• SPI identified sock is a Joe job. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I did not check FJL. -- Izno See what goes on when FJL's block expires. -- Least Action (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Roxy is getting some criticism above for their comment - I can see both sides, and personally have said I don't think that's actionable. However, we have been focussing on the spillover that we have forgotten the original content dispute, and in particular, I am concerned about Roxy's misuse of rollback with edits like this, totally inappropriate in a content dispute. Any pother thoughts? GiantSnowman 11:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Certainly not its intended purpose, even more so when it was done a second time in what is/was a content dispute rather than blatant vandalism. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 11:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. I'm slightly more concerned about this than with the bad language tbh. GiantSnowman 11:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I will also note it was reverted once prior (diff) with an appropriate summary by another user. Whether FJLGreen didn't see it or chose to ignore it, I'm not sure because there was no attempt to communicate from their side outside passive-aggressive edit summaries, and the eventual singular talk page message that began this whole thread.

Roxy should perhaps be reminded of appropriate rollback use versus undo, etc. Under the microscope that ANI brings, it's not a good look. There's been a few minor instances of other misuse of rollback, but nothing too egregious that I think it warrants much more than a reminder presently. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 12:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw this edit summary Rejected by consensus of the community in an edit where Roxy removed with historians widely recognising the influence of Jewish immigrant communities.See diff. Then they battled around whether to keep this statement for some close to 10 revisions. Since this rollback is actually doing the same as a manual revert I don't quite see much inappropriate-ness. -- Least Action (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's OK to use rollback like this. It's just that the effects is just like manual reverting. -- Least Action (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

But the summary deserves some attention. Which consensus? -- Least Action (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Ban Both - Roxy has had more than enough chances to show they can be civil. Enough is enough. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08:I have written a proposal for this, albeit the crappy formatting. -- Least Action (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Least Action: You are making many replies here, often consecutively and with poor formatting. You're also something of a newer editor. I strongly recommend you delete the below sanction proposals and consider finding a more productive venue. ANI is rarely the right place for new editors to gain experience regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if the desire to help out is extremely laudable and appreciated. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll try to find other venues to gain experience. Apologies for the inconvenience I may have caused. -- Least Action (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, but ANI is really not the place to start. Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you please suggest some? -- Least Action (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And I have removed it. Stop that, please. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08 You're really keen to see RTD banned. Is there a reason for that? Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Honestly, I didn't mean to keep saying the same thing over and over. My previous comments got wrapped up in the Joe Job disruption so I felt it appropriate to re-state them here. I will make a final comment on the matter and then bow out. You asked Is there a reason for that? My answer is quite simple, this user has been blocked 13 separate times. The second to last block was an indef that was (IMHO) bizarrely reversed after they claimed they would "do better". Even since the indef was lifted they have received yet another block for personal attacks. At what point is enough, enough? I make no excuses for the fact that FJLGreen compared them to a Nazi, but two wrongs do not make a right. And it is very clear that RTD simply cannot control themselves around others, whether or not the others are in the wrong. And then, on top of that, for Roxy the dog to come dump on my talk page in Special:Diff/1358114072/1358132622 because I dared to voice my opinion initially that they were also in the wrong here really was the breaking point for me. (It should be noted that prior to this discussion, to the best of my knowledge, Roxy and I have never crossed paths.) Roxy has zero self control and is WP:NOTHERE. I find it odd that we are all coming down like a ton of bricks on a new user who felt attacked, but just issuing a warning to a user who, at the very least, has been warned 13 times with actual blocks, not to mention all the other warnings they received that did not result in any sort of block. I will abstain from further comment on the matter. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think it's premature to use any sanctions on RTD, but I feel their actions DO require them to answer. Per my messages above, they have been uncivil to bystanders, and implied that the think they did nothing wrong. This suggests that the behavior will continue. I hope that they were just upset and can give an explanation once they've calmed down, but their stated refusal to address their incivility not just to FJLGreen, but to Zackmann and myself in response to this very thread, goes directly against the promise they made to be unbanned. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support site ban of User:FJLGreen, whose digging was only briefly interrupted by a short block. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Is a warning to RoxyTheDog necessary? Should an editor have learned from being banned and unbanned? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Should an editor have learned from being banned and unbanned? Yes. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef or site ban. A ban may be moot as FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back. Nonetheless, a ban or an indef, seems like a reasonable precaution to make sure that they actually do. Rather than formally warn RoxyTheDog, I'd offer this advice, which is not always easy to follow and which many of us have slipped up on at least once:

Try to recognise when somebody is trying to wind you up and realise that if you respond in anger then you are giving them exactly what they want to keep the drama going at your own expense. Take a deep breath, mutter whatever expletives you were going to type at your screen (provided you don't have speech-to-text enabled) and then report them to the appropriate noticeboard. Once you get a reputation for being possible to wind up that can encourage further attempts. Try to keep a level head and, when you can't, try not to let it show.

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Any diffs for FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back? Sorry but I failed to find any. Linking diff here. -- Least Action (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• DanielRigal writes: A ban may be moot as FJLGreen says that they are going away and not coming back. If an editor says that they are going away, they are probably telling the truth. If an editor says that they are going away and not coming back, we should not rely on their word, and may reasonably take action to prevent them from coming back. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef. Given that they're the one who tried to instantly play the white supremacist card for a stupid dispute about fricking fish and chips, I find it extremely offensive to call us jackals and nasty and abusive even though this is a situation that is entirely of their making, and being blocked for 31 hours is not a brutal hardship. Since they want to leave anyway, they ought not have any objection unless this is an attempt at "calling out sick" with ANI flu. I also Oppose any sanction for RTD. It wouldn't take a lot for me to support an indef for RTD given the history, but I feel it would be unfair for the triggering incident to be one in which a great majority of people, even very experienced ones, would react similarly strongly, including me. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Indef. I hesitate because of WP:BITE but this person seems to be WP:NOTHERE or acting in a way that is indistinguishable from it.Taking to immediate agression when met with pushback is no way to act in a collaborative setting. Additionally, their statements throughout this filing have continued the very same Battleground mentality. In the case they are blocked, hopefully they can come back with a different approach to the project. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where to gain experience on developing and determining consensus, which I perceive to be an important aspect of Wikipedia's goverence and maintenance. But in my opinion this case has developed consensus to ban FJL, but no consensus to sanction Roxy. I think I'm intending to, maybe have a try on this? feel free to correct me or delete this comment. -- Least Action (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• support indef This is a fairly clear case of "im right you are wrong" and also their response saying "this is a lynch mob" when people support a ban for their rather terrible behavior and

Oppose anything stronger than a warning on roxy The day i dont respond like that after being reffered to as Tommy ten names someone needs the really check on me. Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 11:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't try assess consensus when you're WP:INVOLVED or when you cannot implement the result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Im not involved? and I wasnt trying to assess consensus I was trying to give my opinion towards the consensus. Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 11:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jabba550 I think SFR replied to the wrong person, don't worry. Athanelar (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Jabba550, not sure why convenient discussions put my reply here, but it was a reply to . ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

ah thats fine, i think it might be my crap formatting. Jabba550  ✉ Talk to me :D 11:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I got the message. Where should I gain experience with this then? -- Least Action (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In a discussion in which you have not participated. Cabayi (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Watch discussions at AFD's, CFD's & other places that require consensus, see what you think the outcome is and compare it to the eventful outcome.
• Learn as much as you can about why the nomination was made - read the relevant policies & guidelines (P&G's) and see if you think the article/category/etc. meets it. Do the same with the participants and learn which arguments are stronger & bear more weight/scrutiny than others. Some might be problematic - try to learn what to look out for.
• Participate in the simpler discussions after you've spent a good while researching the merits of both sides, are sure of your argument and can link it directly to P&G's to verify and bolster your argument. If you're unsure, just watch to see what happens & learn from it. Don't jump in until you're ready.
• Try to find essays, P&G's and guides on the process.
• Get as much general editing experience as you can, so you know the basics.

I won't go into it much more so I don't derail the discussion, but hopefully this gives you an idea of where to begin - you should get significant editing experience before even thinking about closing anything consensus-based, but that doesn't stop you from learning more about it in the meantime. Admin discussions in particular can carry a lot of weight and can have a huge impact on the participants, so closure at ANI should really be left to admins and only the most experienced editors. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support Indef of FJLGreen I've shown more discretion about calling people who openly displayed a swastika on their user-page Nazis than this editor did over a single line regarding fish and chips. This is an egregious violation of AGF and, even distinct from the other issues at play, would probably be worth some form of sanction to curtail a continuation of such behaviour. When this is compounded both by the apparent use of AI tools and the creation of a PA report that elides that they accused another editor of being a white supremacist over a line of an article about fish and chips prior to said other editor making the personal attack I have to question their fundamental competence to participate in a collaborative project. I don't think Roxy the Dog should face anything more than an informal warning at most. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef I was hesitant in view of their comments here, but their doubling-down during/following the temp ban didn't show any true understanding of why this situation arose and their post above indicates their instinct is to fight back when challenged. We all have this instinct, but that doesn't mean that we should act on it. If they chose to return them this would likely happen again the next time they encounter a difficult dispute.

I realise they want to vanish and this will prevent them from doing so, but courtesy vanishing is discretionary and I'm not seeing any reason why it should be granted just because they don't want their username to be linked to this dispute. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:07, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say any goodwill is gone after this comment they made doubling down and trying to eschew their out-of-pocket nazi comparizon. BrandNewSaint (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Could someone hat or blank the personal attack against me and another editor that FJLGreen was blocked for? As the target, I'm not sure how much of it to cut. --Belbury (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure but redacted the worst of it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef for both: FJLGreen for doubling down on their incivility and personal attacks, and Roxy the dog for not improving their behavior despite numerous blocks and a previous siteban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I said earlier in this apparently never-ending discussion that I think it would be an exercise in false equivalence to blame Roxy for what the other editor did, and I still believe that. The longer this discussion festers, the more opportunities there are for false equivalences, and the more of that there is, the more this discussion becomes WP:DEFARGE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is a false equivalence in that one editor is new and may be able to be taught to do better (though their response to the block doesn't give me hope), and another editor has had almost two decades to learn and even now insists not that they were provoked, but that they acted correctly, and have insulted other editors over it to boot. In their recent unban request, they said, I know how to behave. But now they have said that their block for doubling down on their insult is "petty". They have not claimed to have been provoked, and instead said that calling another editor a piece of shit as their response was measured and appropriate to such an insult. here. Completely ignoring whether such a response can be forgiven, RTD has given every indication that they viewed it as acceptable, and thus likely to happen again. I suppose when it does, I suppose we can just link to this discussion as evidence that it's a pattern. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, that's just wrong, and it illustrates how "anyone can comment at ANI" leads to more heat than light. Yes, calling someone a piece of shit can be quite awful in many situations. But conduct happens in a context. Comparing a Jewish editor to a Nazi is a bit like calling a Black editor by the n-word. That's what happened to Roxy, and this feels to me like blaming the victim. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which part is wrong? I've been wrong before, so I'd appreciate hearing your reasoning beyond bald contradiction. Regarding RTD being Jewish, On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. I had no idea Roxy was Jewish until you told me. I'm Jewish, and have not responded that way when being compared to Hitler. I do hear you about blaming the victim; Coffee Crumbs put it eloquently above, and while I don't agree, I'm also not going to propose sanctions. I do, however, believe we should think about preventing disruption to the encyclopedia, not try to make this a case about justice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate the thoughtful question. The way I see it, we should treat one another as fellow humans. Comparing editors one disagrees with to Nazis (or neo-Nazis, or whatever) is a bad thing to do, no matter who those editors are. When editors who were the targets of that comparison react however they react, we should ask why, rather than just fall into an automatic response. I don't blame anyone for not knowing Roxy's background – there's no reason why anyone should. But now, I've told you, and anyone reading here knows. And knowing that provides some context. The fact that some of us didn't know his background before is not a valid reason to say that he should have reacted the same way as someone of a different background would have. Now, knowing some context, the proper thing to do, the proper way to treat one another as humans, is to take that context into consideration. Did Roxy have to respond that way? No. Did he have to take the bait? No. But is there enough of a mitigating context to make the block he just got a bad block? In my opinion, yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I 100% agree that comparing editors to abhorrent things is bad in general. I think I'm starting to get where you're coming from, and I think it shows both an area I need to put more thought into, and another I didn't explain well. I am not, at this point, calling for sanctions, nor was I earlier. What I was hoping was that RTD would take the opportunity to say something like, "Yeah, that wasn't the best response, I'll try to avoid it in the future," some indication that he wouldn't cuss out any troll that pressed the Hitler button.

  You are correct that context matters. I hadn't thought of it earlier, but yeah, it's like when your uncle, who saw combat in Iraq, makes some insensitive comment about "goat fuckers" or whatever. You can hate the comment, but you also have to consider that there's some serious trauma (generational or otherwise) there, through no fault of their own, so comments on that one subject (or in this case, in response to one particular flavor of insult) shouldn't be taken as indicative of their broader character.

  I can see that. The thing I'm trying to reconcile is giving someone slack versus enabling. You make a very good argument for cutting some slack. My fear is that this or something similar will just keep happening, or that other editors might take this as justification for "firing back" when insulted. I don't think there's a clear answer for that, and you've reminded me that it's better to err on the side of compassion. I'll think more on this. Thank you for taking the time to explain your thought process; I think my stance has mellowed some because of you, and I now agree: there are mitigating factors for this event, and if RTD were to be sanctioned for incivility, let it be for a more clear-cut case than this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, and well-said. Something that we, collectively, need to balance, is the need to avoid enabling, while also avoiding rewarding baiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it would be an exercise in false equivalence to blame Roxy for what the other editor did I'm not blaming Roxy for FJLGreen's behavior. Both editors are in the wrong. FJLGreen needs to indicate that they understand that their personal attacks are completely unacceptable. Roxy, as an experienced editor with a long block log, should definitely know better than to react like that to such personal attacks. That's why I said both editors should be sanctioned, each for independent reasons.

  Tryptofish, with all due respect, don't be a member of Roxy's WP:FANCLUB. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  So you've just linked to a section of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, when talking about someone who is currently blocked, and you've sent me to a section with a picture of Trump. Yes, your comparison of those two editors is a false equivalence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Unblockable" is poor wording. It really should be "editors who repeatedly get blocked and quickly unblocked", or "editors who never stay blocked". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, you are making a false equivalence. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not comparing the two editors. Again, I'm saying that both of them should be sanctioned for independent reasons: one for making egregiously inappropriate personal attacks and then doubling down on them, and one for failure to improve their behavior despite over a decade of opportunities to do so. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which still amounts to a false equivalence. (But bonus points for the gymnastics!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Not really, one was blocked for one thing and the other blocked for a different thing. I think you should probably drop the stick at this point, I don't see anyone really agreeing with you. ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  ^Temp account needs glasses. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Facepalm I should have looked at Roxy's talk before I posted that. But I still think I'm right about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know whether this might have contributed towards people's concerns, it's kind of been lost in everything that happened since. Apologies if you're already aware. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've been reading everything. I have my doubts over whether everyone else has. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

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

G000p10 and continuous CT/SA violations

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with how my editing is being presented here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan100 refusing to engage with editors raising concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Community Review Regarding Allegations Against User:Tgeorgescu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constant denial of using AI

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

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

Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by ~2026-34745-81

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FaviFake and Wikipedia: pages

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

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

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

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

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

Editors revert FaviFake's edits:

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

Editors have raised concerns about FaviFake's editing:

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

I have two desired outcomes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hitmewiththat

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

---

Hitmewiththat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a lot of page moves in the South Asia topic area, with the summaries showing very clear signs of being AI-written. I happened upon them when they moved Bijai Garh to a much longer, not-likely-to-ever-be-searched name, and noticed they seem to have begun moving pages immediately after becoming autoconfirmed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the edit summaries are AI, given gibberish like 'incautionary templation', 'elongating them with topocentric honourifics' etc. More likely someone with a poor grasp of English, and an entirely erroneous assessment of their level of competence in said language and in understanding what the heck they are doing more generally. Unlikely to be of net benefit to the project either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I have p-blocked them from page moves only, given that appears to be the area of disruption. I note no warnings before taking to ANI, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt. GiantSnowman 15:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

They were notified of WP:CT/SA before I filed this thread; at the very least the CTOP notice was on their talk page when I notified them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 02:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct, but no message specifically about dodgy page moves that I can see? GiantSnowman 08:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The were a sock, now CU blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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

About a disruptive TA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FJZAJV: Persistent addition of unsourced content after warning

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

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

Stavru: Edit warring, NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if I make a mistake, editors can fix that

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

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

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

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

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

For example, a Wikipedia editor needs to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixing someone else's mistakes isn't fun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by ~2026-26275-95

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

---

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

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

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

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

Persistent unconstructive edits and disruption by User:WikiWhizKid1999, compounded by their refusal to discuss the matter at hand and indulgence in unrepentant edit warring

WikiWhizKid1999 (talk · contribs) has been exhibiting peculiarly indecorous behaviour lately, insisting on the addition of frivolous, nonexistent suffixes to the names of the descendants of a formal royal family in Rajasthan, India. I refer specifically to two pages, to wit, Chaitanya Raj Singh and Brijraj Singh Bhati. The violations in question are breaching the edit warring policy, reverting changes without justifying the changes, and refusing to engage constructively when I left a note on their page. In the interim, they have been vigorously active otherwise, reverting changes per their whims. To preface, kingdoms have never existed in India since its inception in 1947, and the rulers of these former realms that were eventually absorbed into India lost all their titles and privileges in 1971.

The issue is specifically this. User:WikiWhizKid1999 is deliberately inserting ornate titles to their name, claiming they are/were kings of a specific region in India. They couldn't be more wrong. The 26th Amendment to the Indian Constitution explicitly rendered all princely titles, privileges, and associated paraphernalia obsolete, revoking all titles too. This notwithstanding, the errant user is intentionally styling one of the subjects in question, Chaitanya Raj Singh as the "current Maharawal of Jaisalmer". Maharawal is equivalent to the term "king". Furthermore, User:WikiWhizKid1999 is inserting ornate, ostentatious, and hagiographical titles such as "Chhatrala Yadupati Rukn-ud-Daula Maharajadhiraja Raj-Rajeshwar Parama Bhattarak Muzaffar Jang Bijaimand", implying as if the subject in question is a member of a royal dynasty. This itself is in breach of WP:V.

The whole page (that of Chaitanya Raj Singh) in question seems to be fluff, and is a succinct candidate for speedy deletion given its lack of compliance with WP:N. The whole page seems to be a nothingburger, and is peppered with promotional paraphernalia. The subject lacks any notability.

Curiously though, both these pages were created by User:WikiWhizKid1999 themselves. Furthermore, they insist on the insertion of more fluff and self-aggrandising material, with instances such as these: "Afterwards, he went in a procession throughout the city of Jaisalmer in an open jeep with a cavalcade of horses, camels and a band, and was warmly received by local people." The page in question provides details of his "coronation", which is laughably absurd, and goes on to outline the dates of his "reign", which is even more ludicrous.

In contrast, the pages of fellow members of erstwhile royal families bear no such ostentatious titles (which the subjects themselves lack any prerogative or official recognition to flaunt). Consider the page of Padmanabh Singh, the head of the former ruling family of Jaipur. No such lofty titles or frivolous epithets are abundant on their page, and neither is the usage of the royalty infobox. On the contrary, the pages of both Chaitanya Raj Singh and his father, Brijraj Singh Bhati (which User:WikiWhizKid1999 created on April 10 and 11 of this year respectively), bear these absurdities.

When I reformed the page of Chaitanya Raj Singh by expunging it of titles and hagiographical accounts, User:WikiWhizKid1999 undid them via these two edits (notice how cleverly they circumvented the usage of "undo" by making these changes manually in a series of edits).

When I undid those malicious edits, User:WikiWhizKid1999 inexorably reverted them and left this misleading cookie-cutter post on my talk page, accusing me of "making unconstructive edits".

What ensued was a series of "reversions" on that page, evidenced here. In the interim, I reached out to them to establish a common ground and bring an end to that protracted conflict. They never responded, even though they are otherwise abundantly active on the website and left another template notice on my page, alleging my contributions did "not appear to be constructive".

The same indecorous, unparliamentary behaviour is extant on the page of Chaitanya Raj Singh's father, Brijraj Singh Bhati, both of whom were created by the user in question. Same pattern; they have inserted frivolously promotional titles such as "Chhatrala Yadupati Rukn-ud-Daula Maharajadhiraja Raj-Rajeshwar Parama Bhattarak Muzaffar Jang Bijaimand" and details of his "reign". Attempts at reforming the page were met with hostility too. User:WikiWhizKid1999's edit warring history is documented here.

The aforesaid actions bespeak an editor unwilling to collaborate, unwilling to discuss, and unwilling to justify disputed changes when challenged. The repeated insertion of frivolous titles, ostentatious distinctions, and other material of questionable encyclopaedic value; the apparent personal investment in the subjects in question; the refusal to engage when concerns were raised; the issuance of misleading template notices in lieu of substantive discussion; and the persistent reversions outlined above collectively evince a pattern of conduct incompatible with the collaborative principles of this project.

Having attempted to resolve this matter through discussion and ultimately excusing myself from further participation in the ensuing edit war, I can only conclude that administrative intervention is now necessary since I exhausted all avenues for a resolution without inviting the admins' scrutiny. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Both editors have broken WP:3RR today on Chaitanya Raj Singh and Brijraj Singh Bhati, and neither editor has attempted to discuss these edits on the articles' talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Upon realising I may have been in breach of WP:3RR, I promptly withdrew from the two pages in question. The current live versions for both pages reflect the changes made by the user I reported. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, while I realise neither of us discussed this on the articles' talk pages, I reached out to the user I reported on their talk page. The response? Nothing at all, even though they are otherwise very active as we speak. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps now would be a good time to start? Open the discussion on the article Talk page, that way everyone else can clearly see what's happened so far and contribute to the discussion as well - that's the best way to form a consensus on the best way forward. Don't forget to ping the other editor so they are aware.

If the two of you can't agree on what you should do next, there are plenty of dispute resolution processes available to help you out (such as requesting a third opinion). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

SPI about an apparent hoax walled garden

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

---

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SK ABDUL NAIEEM created an apparent walled garden about a seemingly fictitious "Janata Opinion Party" and some associated topics, including a fictional country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know who should be notified about this ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the user means that the following list of drafts have been created by socks and/or are fictitious, therefore nead deleting:

• Draft:Janata Opinion Party
• User:Officer Naieem/sandbox
• Draft:Md Naieem
• Draft:Eso Islamic Mas'ala Sikhi
• Draft:Prime Minister of Caspian
• Draft:Ruhul Amin
• Draft:Government of Caspian
• Draft:Caspian
• Draft:Yusuf Ansari
• Draft:Mojahidul Islam
• Draft:Rejoyan Ali Mondal

I would tag them for deletion myself, but it seems the PROD procedure is different for drafts? @LaundryPizza03:, is this an exhaustive list? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: They have pictures uploaded on commons. This could span multiple projects... GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 08:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage: Yeah, I already CSD-tagged all the ones about Caspian. Do the same for the Commons images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I've CSD tagged all of them not already done by LaundryPizza. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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

McSly

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

---

Hi. Please be informed of an incident involving McSly. Deleting refs and files : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institut_polytechnique_des_sciences_avanc%C3%A9es&diff=1359187793&oldid=1359140252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-34936-31 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

For future note, please notify the person the discussion is about. Shirt58 has done this for you now. jolielover♥talk 09:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Hew Mun Weng

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring and possible WP:NOTTHERE by User:WintarNeurian

The user WintarNeurian (talk · contribs) has been constantly editing Neuri by removing the sourced claim that this ancient tribe was Baltic to an unsourced claim that it was Slavic.

Despite being told that they need to provide sources for their claim, they refuse to do so and keep on edit warring by undoing reversions to their unsourced edits. They have also left inappropriate messages to myself and another editor who have reversed their edits in the edit summaries.

And, based on their replies to other editors at User talk:WintarNeurian, it seems that they have a personal attachment to an image of the Neuri tribe as being related to themselves, which I believe might fall into WP:NOTTHERE grounds.

Additionally, they seem to be using a sockpuppet at NShutov (talk · contribs) as well as editing while logged out as can be seen here. Antiquistik (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that they're currently under a 24-hour edit-warring block by @Rsjaffe:. However, looking through their edit summaries and comments on their talk page (see ) there's clearly a much deeper problem and I've indeffed as WP:NOTHERE under WP:HID. I'll be looking into Neuri to see if it merits ECP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Having looked into it while I'm not sure they're the mentioned other account above I have strong suspicions that they may also be a sock of the blocked R3DOUT905 (talk · contribs). I've applied extended confirmed protection under WP:CT/EE to Neuri for six months. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I endorse the action by The Bushranger. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Serial personal attacks by TA

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

---

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

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

  Specifically, tgeorgescu has:

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

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

AKA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block for multiple TAs

Hello everyone!

Please block the following TAs:

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

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

@EvergreenFir,

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

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

user Constrayevan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user AreYouRetardedOrJustGay? and talk page

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

---

AreYouRetardedOrJustGay? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could use a talk page access adjustment. Adakiko (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Why does CentralAuth say that user doesn't exist? WereWolf370 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

account name corrected and  Done Mfield (Oi!) 21:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Grobe0ba reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serious accusation by User:Tamzin against User:Levivich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Holy smokes, Tamzin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose for now, at least - I think I Levivich and I disagree on a great many things (a couple examples in threads linked above, even), and he hasn't helped his case with this disconnection from articlespace (worth reconsidering, as that'll keep being used against you [for good reason IMO]), but surely the evidentiary threshold for a WP:NOTHERE CBAN is substantially higher than what has been presented here.
  I have found Levivich to be wrong, and even frustrating from time to time, but I don't think I've ever had the impression that Levivich is NOTHERE, and the small number of links above are not nearly enough to convince me that an impression formed over some years is incorrect. I do perceive in Levivich something that I identify with: that he seems more likely to participate in a thread if he thinks it's headed in the wrong direction, or where there's a pile-on that seems like it could use a "hold on a minute" voice. I know from experience that's not a great way to make friends, and certainly not when talking about an issue that has a lot of people fired up. That being said ... hold on a minute. :)
  I'll also say that I don't love the use of the Simple Sabotage Field Manual here. In a rules-based, consensus-based, discussion-and-process-heavy system like we have, I suspect we could compile diffs showing basically all of us are saboteurs. At minimum, I would expect to see a lot more diffs to specifically substantiate that that document is applicable to Levivich in enough ways to make it relevant. But I would much prefer if we could just do it the old fashioned way: dump a pile of diffs showing evidence of a pattern of NOTHERE since the tban that's compelling enough to convince us that Lev has tossed aside 40k edits of HERE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban for now, for reasons similar to Rhododendrites just above (although "hold on a minute" can also sometimes just be throwing a counterproductive wrench into the works), but support some sort of narrower restriction. I don't think we've reached the point yet where we should be rushing to a site ban. But I do feel that there are some serious issues here, so I could support a tban from WP: and WT: spaces, or something like that, based on the evidence so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I gotta say, this report strikes me as a clear case of "bitch eating crackers". Which is to say, my diagnosis here is that Levivich hasn't done anything particularly wrong other than somehow piss off Tamzin to the degree that Tamzin is no longer capable of taking anything Levivich does in good faith in any context. (Because of this I regard the original comment as a pretty serious WP:ASPERSION that cannot be backed up.) All the examples Tamzin lists strike me as either good faith mistakes (1 and 3) or Levivich simply being correct (2; silence is not consensus). Loki (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban, but something needs to change. Levivich has some strong opinions - we all do, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However the way they choose to pursue them is becoming unproductive. This isn't uncommon when someone decides to forgo article writing and instead focuses on RGW/tilting at windmills. No one has to edit articles, we're all volunteers, but if you have no interest in doing so then maybe this is no longer the site for you and there are other places to have the meta discussions about solving the world or at least en wiki. That said, a project space ban coupled with Levivich's decision not to edit articles is functionally a site ban. I guess the question is whether Levivich wants to remain part of the community or not. That's on them to decide. Star Mississippi 01:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN between Tamzin and Levivich, in addition to and not withstanding any other sanctions. A lot of the misbehavior cited above by Tamzin (in fact, most of it) is from direct interactions between them and Levivich. It's up for debate whether Levivich has been meaningfully contributing to the project since the ARBPIA5 TBAN, but the fact remains that Tamzin and Levivich just cannot seem to get along with each other. Whenever they interact, they trade inflammatory accusations. I take no position on whether Levivich is in fact a valuable contributor or a troll disrupting the project, but at a minimum the two editors should be banned from interacting with each other. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A short, piquant, intermission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Target Account

User:Leutrim.P

Nature of Disruption

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

Area of Impact

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

1. Geospatial Data and Technical Baseline

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

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

2. Behavioral Evidence & System Logs

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

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

3. Tactical Escalation & Bypassing Local Administration

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

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

4. Administrative Request for Global Oversight

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

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

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

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

Disruptive cross-wiki editing by User:Leutrim.P

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the ninth source, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topoview Cartographic Index tracks mid-century tactical charts compiled under the U.S. Army Map Service (AMS) series that verify the international border matching the precise watershed parameters. Shifting the topoview system matrix down to the lake's true spatial node displays the boundary tracking on the physical crest, isolating the water basin cleanly inside Greek jurisdiction via the direct historical map viewer deep-link at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#17/40.36287/20.79065.

Regarding the tenth source, the primary diplomatic baseline from the 1925 Florence Protocol preserved at the UN Archives in Geneva remains the definitive legal and territorial baseline governing this frontier sector. This international treaty was signed by the boundary commissions on January 27, 1925, and the original digitized diplomatic instrument is preserved directly within the League of Nations collection at the United Nations Archives in Geneva. This sovereign protocol mandates that the international boundary along the Grammos range must strictly track the morphological water-divide line, or linea spartiacque. Because the lake basin naturally drains exclusively to the eastern Greek side of the peaks, the protocol firmly places the entire feature outside the domestic jurisdiction of Albania, as indexed at the direct UN Archives digital object link https://archives.ungeneva.org/accords-de-londres-1913-frontiere-greco-albanaise-protocole-de-delimitation-avec-cinq-annexes-florence-1925-commission-internationale-de-delimitation-des-frontieres-de-lalbanie.

Regarding the eleventh source, the historical cartographic record from the WWII Captured German Military Maps (Griechenland 1:100 000 Series) was compiled by the General Staff of the German Army (OKH) under the Deutsche Heereskarte operational project. These tactical 1:100,000 scale color charts utilize a precise regional Greek conic projection to track border topography across the Grammos range. The official sheets run the international boundary line north of the mountain basin, explicitly placing the Lake Gistova depression outside the occupied Albanian Korçë sector and leaving it cleanly within Greek jurisdiction. Reviewers can verify the cataloged institutional record via the University of California, Berkeley Earth Sciences and Map Library digital collections archival record at https://berkeley.edu.

Per Wikipedia policies on verifiability, crowd-sourced editorial consensus cannot supersede or contradict live, primary geospatial data published by sovereign states, military cartographic institutes, and international regulatory bodies. I ask that administrators review this cross-wiki disruption and protect the pages from unscientific data removal. Aetolia (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you comment on whether you used AI for the previous topic you have opened? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No one is able to do anything because this is about a different language edition of Wikipedia, also, the behavior of the reported user on the Albanian Wikipedia does not appear disruptive. I would suggest just closing this. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

We gave him multiple chances to discuss it, and we contributed to the discussion, but he wasn't interested, and just sent a massive request text just like this one, in multiple places at once and dissapeared. We were waiting for him to respond, he didn't, and still now he has come here complaining about me in a cynical way. We are open, but he wants to force a decision, not to get to a conclusion through consensus. I had to write for context, even though this discussion is closed already. With respect. This is the discussion; 1 - Leutrim.P (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

BLP violation -- anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 -- biography of HRH Princess Karen Wright-Sori Brengettsy-Chatman

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

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

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

I am disclosing that I have an association with The Official Royal House of Sori. I am not paid or compensated for my edits or contributions to this biography. My edits are made in good faith to ensure accuracy and compliance with WP:BLP. The violation:

Anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 has repeatedly inserted the unsourced claim that the Greenberg Center at Trinity College terminated its partnership with The Official Royal House of Sori. No reliable independent source has been provided to support this claim at any point. Action Taken:

I have removed all references to the Greenberg Center at Trinity College from this biography. The Official Royal House of Sori initiated the conclusion of this partnership per official correspondence TORHOS-R9-TRM-2026-001 dated May 13, 2026. Removing unsourced claim per WP:BLP. Editing pattern:

Anonymous editor ~2026-32004-03 has made 11 edits since account creation on May 28, 2026, every one targeting this biography or related talk pages:

20:09, 28 May 2026 -- False claim first inserted 20:10, 28 May 2026 -- Editor manually reverted their own edit 01:42--01:58, 8 June 2026 -- Same unsourced claim inserted six times within 16 minutes 03:39, 14 June 2026 -- Good-faith revert by Glane23 14:02, 15 June 2026 -- ~2026-32004-03 undid Glane23's revert 19:45, 15 June 2026 -- ~2026-32004-03 contacted Glane23 talk page to argue position

Request:

Requesting that administrators: Remove all instances of the unsourced claim from the biography per WP:BLP Apply semi-protection to this biography page Review ~2026-32004-03 editing pattern for bad-faith conduct

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Home817 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use AI to edit or make reports at Wikipedia, looking at the article I'm a little concerned that this was also AI-generated. Can you please let us know whether this is the case?
ANI is usually for reports of long-term behavioural issues that can't be resolved any other way (e.g. by talking to the other editor). It looks like the TA has been directed to the article Talk page here and hasn't edited since, so hopefully no further action is necessary.
I also note that you submitted the article with an AI-generated image, which has been nominated for deletion .
I'm not seeing a conflict of interest disclosure on the version that was submitted to AFC, however I note that there was a COI notice that you removed prior to submission at AFC. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that this is a content dispute, which administrators cannot assist with - their request for page protection has been declined for this same reason. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Home817 Thank you for replying at my Talk page, it would be better to discuss here since it relates to your report and everything can be kept together. You uploaded the photo as your own work, which may have led the deletion nominator to think it was AI-generated - by uploading it as your own work, you've declared that you're the creator of the image, therefore as the image copyright holder you are able to release it on a Creative Commons license for use on Wikipedia.

I suspect you used AI for more than basic grammar/spell checks, considering the format of the article and the above report. That would not be compliant with the WP:NEWLLM guidelines so I kindly ask that you avoid using it at Wikipedia going forwards.

Since the edits were made by a single account and they've apparently stopped once things were explained to them, it doesn't appear that the article needs protection. Please also avoid calling edits "vandalism" as the term has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I am new to all this, but I used AI to correct my grammar and spelling. I won't use AI again. I did upload another picture which 100% is not AI but it too was taken down and now the tag is her profile is Hallucinating is an unwarranted and in ways derogatory of a BLP as each claim is cited and sourced. I seek yours and more seasoned editors with the reinstatement of the subjects' photo and the structure it requires. Additionally, the user was never advised of the BLP or COI as I believe they should have been. I offer my sincere appreciation to you and all that contributed to my understanding and learning. Home817 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Home817: What is your connexion to Mlopez1010 (talk · contribs), who posted this BLP noticeboard thread demanding a deletion? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 18:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/~2026-32004-03, which I suspect is at least one of these editors logged out. The original article is now at AFD, due to concerns over a lack of notability and the article itself being of poor quality (yet another reason why AI shouldn't be used at Wikipedia). I was tempted to G15 but several editors tried to fix it in the interim. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Now at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Wright-Sori Brengettsy-Chatman. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

M.S. Asher: Violations of WP:ONUS, repeated personal attacks, and some recent edit warring.

Hello,

I have a situation that involves the user account User:M.S. Asher. This is a case that involves personal attacks/accusations, WP:ONUS Policy violations, and some edit-warring. Allow me to explain the situation.

On January 22, 2026, M.S. Asher posted a request for a Third Opinion regarding an issue on Talk:Germany–Iran relations (Germany–Iran relations Talk Page). Stumbling upon the post and having some familiarity with the topic, I posted an in-depth 3O in an attempt to help resolve the matter; Asher's request is found here. There were other users apparently involved in this debate who had engaged in sockpuppetry on that talk page; M.S. Asher felt suspicious that, because I agreed with the position of the sockpuppets (who I did not realize were sockpuppets), I myself was also a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of another user. The investigation can be found here under February 6, 2026.

Initially, the first Check-User Izno commented "I would guess this user either also is Melons or knows Melons personally (possibly digital only). I couldn't say which is more likely but lean toward know rather than is." This was, seemingly, a preliminary comment by the CheckUser thinking meatpuppetry was involved; the sockpuppets of the abusive user were blocked but I was not. Another user who chimed in from the the Third Opinion Post was User:MWFwiki; he directed M.S. Asher to make his desired changes based on Izno's preliminary comment, here. This was clearly a mistake on his end (a forgivable one), and breached WP:ONUS, because my account was still unblocked. The proper procedure was to continue engaging in discussion until a consensus was reached, as policy dictates (WP:ONUS); I posted my Third Opinion before M.S. Asher launched the investigation and I was never blocked, meaning he should have engaged with me for consensus before making changes); however, Asher made his changes regardless on March 29, 2026. See here. Please know that M.S. Asher is already aware of the principle behind ONUS, as another user already warned him before on that same talk page, see here. Furthermore, a look at Asher's talk page shows another user warned them about consensus policy and WP:ONUS with reference to another unrelated article in the past: see here and here. Asher has thus been warned several times and is well-aware of these policies. Nevertheless, I decided to hold things off until my investigation was completed and decided not to revert things back to their old stable versions, out of good faith courtesy. The investigation file took until June 3, 2026 to close.

As one clearly observes, the case closed without my block. I was cleared of any guilt; please see the investigation here, asilvering's comment. The admin commented that he did find the coincidental situation "very sus", but no sanctions or bans were placed on my account. I also was not barred from continuing to participate in the Germany–Iran relations Talk Page, and I was not barred from making any edits on that page, or any other page on the site.

During the time of the investigation process, I decided to do some policy research, directed by one of MWFwiki's comments telling me to do so; once the investigation file closed, I returned and posted a Policy Argument against M.S. Asher's position, demonstrating how M.S. Asher, the blocked user Confluencer, and my original Third Opinion were all based on WP:OR: Original Research. My argument supported the long-existing WP:QUO Status Quo information of that page that had been up since 2008. You can find my overall Policy Argument here. I also posted an argument titled "Restoration" where I undid M.S. Asher's March 29 edit that should not have been made in the first place, citing WP:QUO and WP:ONUS. The full argument can be read there.

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 violating WP:ONUS, edit warring recently to necessarily impose his will on the page-at-issue (Germany–Iran relations), and the repeated, countless, relentless personal attacks, some disciplinary action is needed; we are past the point of a warning. However, I am in no place to tell Wiki admins what to do, so please do anything you see fit.

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. 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.

Thank you for your time. I hope this matter can be resolved soon. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick note to please be mindful of editors' gender - you've referred to everyone as "he" despite no gender being specified on their userpages. If someone doesn't have a clear gender preference, please use neutral terms. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean any offence by that. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All I ask is users to go examine the discussion page, and investigation thoroughly before a decision, which ofc the admins would do anyways. I considered the content violations accusations clearly baseless, the oppositional side (originally another user, and possibly this user, which is not a personal attack because the investigation believed it was suspect, but that there was not enough evidence for action to their standard) had repeatedly attempted to frame the discussion, and during my attempts to solve the debate through a third opinion this latest user with a gap of inactivity and small edit history came in asking to be taken as a third opinion immediately after the actual third opinion answered, the other user MWFwiki had agreed to my edit that Melons removed and this latest series of points raised in the discussion page appeared to be fallacious, I had already laid out the criteria and examination of the sources earlier in the discussion and I quickly restated anyways for the purpose of discussion (but I’m aware that I can’t speak for others so if anyone else legitimately does believe I engaged in content violations feel free to revert my last reversion). Anyways Ive reverted only once in three months on that page. I am in fact a male so I have no problem being referred to as he btw. I will note that the other user that was banned from the discussion, and who’s nature of responses and attitude is remarkably similar to this user, had a long history of bad-faith editing and deliberate account abuse, as you can see from the investigations file, perhaps someone could re-launch another sock investigation of this account. Either way he gave a new list of reasons why further editing, after he removed my edit, should not be allowed until the new accusations of policy violations he brought up were fully resolved, even after the requested third opinion stated no reservation regarding any of this and was the one who suggested I go ahead and edit the article. You can understand my concern, even if the admins decide my conduct was inappropriate regardless.

Anyways I reverted, whilst remarking that he (and the page in general for that matter it must be said) is at high risk for sock-puppet abuse, was because his accusations that I failed to meet ONUS or violated a couple of other standards such as original research and synth were clearly false. He is saying I didnt satisfy onus when after two years the third opinion suggested I go ahead and edit the article, he is saying I used SYNTH and original research when aside from pertaining to publishing analysis from original research and a synthesis of data that is not supported directly in the works on public wikipedia articles and not discussions of reliability of sources and wether they are more appropriate than recent published works — which wasn't what I based my argument on anyways as the information and citations of the works etc was all derived from the published sources, the statement themselves, and the core claim that Iranians were ever classified as Aryans was explicitly refuted by David Motadel in a published scholarly source. My edit that he reverted came only after the third opinion had suggested it after some two years of discussion. Further, I did not say that Izno confirmed he was a sock, but that he said he was likely that (another possibility he mentioned was meat-puppet) M.S. Asher (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Without re-reviewing all that has occurred (which I am willing to do, but there is a lot of ground to cover), I want to share my perspective based on my limited recollection of this entire situation.

1. My involvement in all of this began when I responded to a "Third Opinion" request, I believe made by @M.S. Asher. I made limited comments on it as there seemed to be extensive socking and there was limited participation by a third editor... it just seemed to @M.S. Asher left-standing.

2. I take exception to my response being characterized as a "direct[ion]". I advised M.S. Asher to edit within the bounds of policy and relevant guidelines; I don't think that is a controversial statement. That, given the amount of socking that had occurred on the page, and the lack of response from @DrMelonsPhD (and to be absolutely fair, they did respond, eventually), as long as they can defend their edits per ONUS, then who am I to stand in their way? (I'm no one, I don't have any authority to do so, to be abundantly clear - I may be a reasonably experienced editor and have several permissions but I am NOT an administrator, in case there is any confusion. Given my career-choices off-Wikipedia I tend to speak with a bit more of an officious tone than is probably warranted and I apologize in-advance)

3. @DrMelonsPhD was subject to a sockpuppet investigation at the time I made my comments. I based some of what I said off of what I said off of @Izno's (who really should have been alerted to this ANI, @DrMelonsPhD, given they're mentioned several times) statement on the sock investigation.

4. I also made it abundantly clear (here) that I had not personally seen any damning evidence against @DrMelonsPhD, though I did acknowledge some of their behavior was "slightly" odd.. but I also acknowledged that this could have been coincidental or even incidental. I did, admittedly, chide @DrMelonsPhD for their statements which seemed to indicate that they were conducting original research and I also advised them that they should — preferably — not be trying to provide Third Opinions when they are such an inexperienced editor, in my opinion, for numerous reasons.

5. I'm not entirely clear what the sock investigation's conclusion regarding @DrMelonsPhD was. Izno seemed to hint at a connection but that appeared to be mere speculation. However... given Izno's statement and given the extensive socking that had occurred on that page, I feel that @M.S. Asher's actions/statements should be evaluated via the lens of someone dealing with such socking. I.e. perhaps they should be given slightly more latitude than someone normally casting aspersions, or what have you (though I'm not saying I believe Asher was indeed casting aspersions... again, I haven't re-read everything yet).

6. All of this being said, I will re-read everything involved, here, and see if it's possible for me to present a better opinion. There are some rather serious claims, here, so, I think it warrants a good look. I do wish to make it clear that while I have ostensibly taken @M.S. Asher's "side" here, I really haven't. I'm just relaying what I recollect and how I see things having went-down. Again, I will re-familiarize myself with this situation and respond again.

Apologies for the length of this, dear readers. — MWFwiki (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki, thank you for your response. On your second point, you claimed that my "lack of response" was what had you advise Asher to make the changes he felt were right; however, I explicitly noted I would step away from editing until my sockpuppet investigation closed (here. While this is not an obligation dictated by policy, I felt it would be the right thing to do out of courtesy; perhaps you could also chalk it up to be a scared, indecisive new user unsure of how to handle such an accusation.

In any case, Asher did not respond to my original Third Opinion post until almost two months later; you quickly advised him to make whatever changes he felt were best only shortly after his return to that page within a few days, on March 28. Asher, thus, violated WP:ONUS here for the first time, making changes during an ongoing discussion, doing so AFTER I entered the discussion with my Third Opinion (my 3O is post found here, see the date and compare it to when the first change was made by Asher). I do not, however, blame you for any of this; Asher was already aware of this policy. Of course, his second time violating WP:ONUS was yesterday; I tried to set things back to the old, long-standing version with rationale provided on the Talk Page, and he reverted with this.

Allow me to also add, from WP:TALKDONTREVERT: Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Thus, my lack of response would not be grounds for changes regardless, even if such "silence" had occurred.

I disagree with you that Asher's perspective should be considered more leniently as a party who has been dealing with sockpuppetry. It is one thing to hurl accusations and attacks during the investigation process, which took until June 3, and an entirely other matter to continue making these accusations and attacks AFTER the case as closed, as he has done. All of this is substantiated with evidence in my ANI post right above.

As for you saying you're unaware how the sockpuppet investigation case was concluded, again, please review my ANI post above. My case closed without sanctions; I am cleared.

I appreciate your professionalism MWFwiki; rest assured I am not reporting you in this ANI, only M.S. Asher. However, any input you have on the situation is obviously appreciated, since you are an involved party on the article's Talk Page. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Honeybrowneyes - sock farm or trolling?

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

---

I would like to hear what other admins think about these edits? Deb (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Repeating my words from another page:

I apologize for the same.

An account which was made on 15 June 2026 with only 1 edit had been accusing me of being a sock of Alakmarsaify with no evidence.

The same account was also doing the same antics on your Talk page.

Fortunately, they have been indefinitely blocked.

Honeybrowneyes (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, scrub this section. I see now that it wasn't Honeybrowneyes who made the edits; s/he simply reverted them. Deb (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

New editor repeatedly adding OR in contentious topic spaces

Deva Sara999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user created their account late last year and since then has continuously added OR to articles in the WP:CT/SA and WP:CT/EE space. I warned and informed them () of the OR policy and topic sanctions but these received no response and the editors continues so without any acknowledgement or response.

At Indra, despite being reverted by different editors for the clear OR, has repeated the same no less than ten times (e.g. , , , , , , , , ).

Other instances: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

This also extends to other wikimedia projects simplewiki, WQ, WD etc.

It appears time for a block, unless the editor can show basic understanding of enwiki policy. Though I doubt a response here is to come. Gotitbro (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for one month for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Temporary account repeatedly editing other person's signed comment

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

---

~2026-35071-81 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

This user was edit warring in a contentious topic (Islamabad Memorandum) multiple (three) times (diff1) (diff2) (diff 3), so I reverted them and warned them using the disruptive editing level 2 template. They then edited my comment on their talk page and changed the whole meaning (diff). And also replied with "Malignant narcissism", which might be personal attack?

I warned them using {uw-tpv3} and restored my original comment. The user reverted the warning (which was okay) and restored the edited comment again. I followed up with a final warning using {uw-tpv4}, but they have repeated the behavior and reverted it again.

This is a repeated violation of WP:TPOC. Please take necessary steps. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As a quick note, please remember to use {{ANI notice}} next time to tell people you brought them to ANI. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 10:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I did. And they reverted that as well (diff) :< — Raihanur (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 10:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

quick, make a video! Ethyl and Gladys are never gonna believe this one! A human with two legs actually standing up for his own talk page integrity! ~2026-35071-81 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Per TAIV data, they're on an adjacent IP to ~2026-30714-98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI); somewhat different interests but similar behavioral patterns. There's other people on the same /24 who appear to be distinct, though, so it's not a slam-dunk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I re-reverted their editing of your comment and they responded with aw a control freak having a bad hair day, how entertaining, do entertain us some more, sad control freak Is Can we get an admin to block with tpa revoke given their response here as well Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 18:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This will need having the edit summary revdelled potentially. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 18:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Probable undisclosed COI + AI use

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

First, the COI.

This editor has for the past two years been an SPA on the topic of Gaurav Buman. Their previous attempt to get a draft about him approved was declined in October 2025, as evidenced by their talk page. All the way back in 2024 they were asked whether they had a conflict of interest on the topic of Buman, which they did not reply to.

Then just today they recreated their draft (which seemingly had since been G13ed for inactivity) and moved it directly into mainspace.

I moved it back into draftspace due to the suspected COI and the dubious notability of the subject. In response to my question about their COI, they responded with a comment full of WP:AISIGNS (not least of all the whole thing literally being in quotation marks, the same as their initial comment on the teahouse) in which they claim they have no connection whatsoever to the subject and created [the draft] purely because I believed he met Wikipedia's notability criteria as a fifth-generation member of the Burman family and founder of Taco Bell's Indian franchise operation. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that somebody would spend the course of two years (on and off) trying to publish an article about a fast food franchisee purely out of a matter of interest. Not only that, but "being a fifth-generation of the Burman family" isn't in any notability criteria I'm aware of, and certainly sounds like the kind of thing an AI would make up when asked to provide a plausible denial of conflict of interest.

This alone wasn't enough to motivate me to make a report, but given that when I then asked them to refrain from AI generating their comments they denied it entirely despite the abundance of signs, I think this gives even more reason to doubt their denial of COI, and is in itself an issue. Athanelar (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting this comment on their talk page from just now which seems to be human-written and is tonally/stylistically completely different from the odd quotation-marked comment provided above; and different from the comment posted immediately before it which shows the same tone, odd italicisation and stray quotation mark as the reply to me at the Teahouse. I think it's very obvious that some of this user's comments are AI generated despite their denial. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have never met him. Yet that picture in the article is their own work? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
• I repeat my periodic challenge, which remains unanswered: someone show me an editor who started out wasting community time, and polluting articles, with AI slop who eventually became a productive editor. In the meantime, AI sloppers such as this should be blocked on sight, with redemption possible under only the most stringent criteria. EEng 14:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

I've indefinitely blocked Randy Kryn from Category:Films about birds for edit warring for nearly 3 years. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Accepted, and I hear that the editors who can't wrap their head around the fact that birds are dinosaurs think that they have a point (but they really don't). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of ancestry or cladistics, it is obvious that "birds" are not "dinosaurs" in everyday English usage, or vice versa. If I said to a co-worker, "I saw an interesting bird on my walk to work today," he or she would hopefully express interest. If I said "I saw an interesting dinosaur ..." the reaction would likely be very different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen a few people make this argument, but I still struggle to see its relevance. It's not a proposal to rename films about birds to films about dinosaurs. We have a category tree, "films about animals", and this debate is over whether birds should be in "films about dinosaurs" (which is in "films about reptiles", which is in "films about animals") or whether it should just be in "films about animals". So it's a question of whether scientific hierarchy should be used or something else, not about whether to call birds dinosaurs instead of birds. (Although I supposed it's worth mentioning that when Randy was adding "films about dinosaurs" it was in addition to "films about animals", which is then redundant -- the either/or seems like the correct question, and whether "birds should be directly under animals, and not dinosaurs, because people don't know about that hierarchy" is a good reason to do categorize is something I'd defer to the categorizer pros at CFD or elsewhere on). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The Films about birds category is a small part of a wider series of discussions that has included the article space, so arguments are likely moving between discussions. (For an article space example see Dinosaur size, which opens somewhat confusingly with "Size is an important aspect of dinosaur paleontology...ranging from tiny hummingbirds".) CMD (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well that sounds like more than I want to tackle. :) This categorization dispute jumped out to me initially because I was surprised to see the obsolete "birds descended from dinosaurs, but birds aren't dinosaurs" argument come into play. Whether we want some categories to be hierarchical according to scientific classification and some to be purely pop culture isn't something I care about, but it should be on that basis and not on the basis of "birds aren't dinosaurs" or the like. And certainly when we are talking about scientific subjects like "dinosaur size", put me down as strongly objecting to not talking about some dinosaurs just because some readers might not know that they are dinosaurs. If someone finds it jarring, and is led to learn more about why birds are dinosaurs, frankly that seems like a great outcome. It's understandable, of course -- that birds are dinosaurs has only been a solidly mainstream scientific consensus for a few decades now. We've had much longer to adapt our thinking to other classifications like humans being primates or the like. Omitting hummingbirds, which are in fact the smallest dinosaurs, when talking about dinosaur size just feels like doing readers a disservice. But we're well off topic for ANI purposes, and the edit warring has been dealt with by SFR above, so I'll shut up and let this resolve. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Humans looks like other primates, but birds definitely don't looks like dinosaurs. Your analogy is incorrect. MBH (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's just nonsense. Clearly a goldfinch doesn't look like a T-Rex, but does a secretary bird look like certain dromaeosaurs? Clearly, yes. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We're not obligated to write our encyclopedia in such a way that it is unsurprising to literal children. Given what you said above, you might not have first-hand experience with American-style creationism, but acting like the statement that appeals to the least-informed people must be the correct one is a big part of how they operate. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this in a non-awkward way, but Categories aren't articles, nor do they need to follow Wiki articles and academia to the letter. WP:CAT states: By grouping pages according to their essential, defining characteristics, the system allows readers to browse and efficiently locate related topics. The defining characteristic of a hummingbird is not that it is technically a dinosaur, that's just trivia. It is easy to forget that we're building an encyclopaedia for others. Making categories relevant and easily navigable for casual readers is the goal. I imagine that if a reader is reading about velociraptors or triceratops, they probably want to read about T-rexs and diplodocuses next, not ravens and warblers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING is indeed the name of the game. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there a category for 'films about vertebrates'? Can I add Doctor Doolittle? Or did the esteemed doctor talk to the poor spineless creatures too? Anyway, per above comments, being dinosaurs isn't a defining characteristic as far as media depictions of birds go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We have Category:Films about primates but there are several thousands of films about human beings that aren't listed in it, for some reason. CodeTalker (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

And Category:Films about talking animals is curiously lacking even Finally (film). Morwen (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems a bit presumptive and disparaging towards "casual readers". Of those "casual readers" who even click on Category: links in the first place (they don't seem to be a heavily-used feature of the site), how many would be completely perplexed by making Category:Films about dinosaurs a supercategory for Category:Films about birds, and how many would see that and be reminded of a thing they heard one time about how birds are dinosaurs now? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We aren’t forced to use clades for organizing. In common discussion, evolutionary grades are more commonly used. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I enabled subscription to this thread, but why is its location listed as WP:VPM in the notifications? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's because of the section header of this ANI section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Randy Kryn topic banned from edits regarding birds being dinosaurs

Randy Kryn has engaged in long-term disruption regarding the whether or not birds should be considered dinosaurs for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. They engaged in long term edit warring against over half a dozen editors at Bee hummingbird about whether or not it should be labelled as the "smallest dinosaur" (see ), to the point that an entire RfC had to be called to stop their antics back in 2021 . At some point, enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Breach of NPA, disruptive editing and reference forging

User Vitoria85 has repeatedly insulted me in their edit summaries (, , , , ). As you can see in the latest link, they also engaged in an extreme example of disruptive behavior, for they edited the content of a literal quotation so that the source would say whatever they want it to say (link repeated here ), i.e., they forged the content of the reference. Adding to their disruptive behavior, they keep restoring once and again the edits that a few "mysterious" IPs made on several Valencia-related pages (, , , (, , among others), which were immediately reverted by many other users (, , , , , ,, , , , , , and the list is not even exhaustive). Finally, one of those IPs ended up blocked for personal attacks against another user, and the page Valencian language got protected to prevent IP editing. Barely 4 hours after this, Vitoria85, a user with barely 3 edits, re-appeared after 8 years on inactivity, and the first thing yhey did was to restore all the changes that the non-registered user(s) preferred (, , ). They now insist that the vandal IPs version was the stable one and they keep urging the users who reverted the IPs to "consensuate" the version they restored (). A few days ago they returned after months of inactivity and restored, once again, versions of pages in which they had already been immediately reverted (here, for instance, you can find their original edit: , the RV: and, once again, their new attempt at restoring their version: ), as well as the contributions of yet two other "mysterious" IPs ( and ; compare with , , and ). Pretty disruptive, as you can see. Glottonymia (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The connection of the blocked IP and Vitoria85 accounts seems extremely WP:DUCKy to me; pinging Black Kite who blocked the former. Also Glottonymia, please note the notice at the top of this page about notifying the other editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Glottonymia (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It does look (especially from the timing) particularly suspicious, I have to admit. A CU would be useful but the IPs of the TA accounts are I believe now out of range (they certainly are for us mere admins). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Obvs not a CU, but I'm aware from SPI's that they can't connect TA's to named accounts - it's got to be done behaviourally (apologies if you're already aware of this). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Stadt67 – Threaten to report while still breaking policy?

Stadt67 is edit-warring on Oliver Tree and broke 3RR by making 4 reverts in 24 hours.

Here are the diffs: 1. 2. 3. 4.

They are reverting multiple editors to consistently place their own version and seem to be the only editor doing so. After they left me a message on my talk page saying I broke 3RR (which I don't recall doing so) for which I later responded to, I left a message on their talk page about their behavior and breaking policy. They later deleted my message, accusing me of retaliatory behavior, and threatened to report me to ANI instead of discussing a solution to said edit war.

Since they refuse to use the talk page and keep breaking the revert limit, I'd like an admin to intervene in this and hopefully resolve this. ConeKota (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@ConeKota: Please refile this at WP:ANEW. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

DannyCutterAnderson unwilling to follow NPA

Last month, DannyCutterAnderson (DCA) was brought to ANI for disruption and personal attacks. After failing to acknowledge the community's concerns with their conduct, the discussion culminated in them being blocked for a week. The blocking admin, Morwen, hoped that DCA would "take this time and reflect and come back with a calmer approach". This did not happen. Comments like stop trying to be cleaver with this obviously your not David Attenborough (), i think you need to be banned for sheer incompetence (), and you all need your heads checked if you think about deleting this () all suggest both a clear unwillingness to abide by NPA. I don't see any indication that an escalating block would alter course for DCA, as they can't even make it a month without back-to-back attacks on multiple editors. Indef 'em and let's move on. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)