Wikipedia:CESSPIT

HotChickenParmesan

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

One of the many new users causing disruption in articles related to 2025–2026 Iranian protests and 2026 Iran war. Not only are they tampering with sourced info by adding their own commentary (and edit warring to preserve it), they're also trying to gaslight by denying all these claims and making accusations such as WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF and W:NPOV (in other words, attempts at WP:GAMING). For a new user, they sure know the names of a lot policies.

Javid Shah - changes the lede about the chant to something solely related to monarchy when it's clearly not, also removed that it is also used in Iran and not just by diaspora: "used by many' in the Iranian opposition to demonstrate opposition to the Islamic Republic by advocating for either the full restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty or solely the return of Reza Pahlavi to lead the planned transitional government. -----> "used by some in the Iranian diaspora, primarily monarchists, to demonstrate opposition to the Government of Iran by advocating for the resuscitation of the Pahlavi dynasty" This is despite the cited sources saying 1) "To outside observers, chants of “Javid Shah” may sound like a literal call for the restoration of monarchy. Inside Iran, their meaning is more complex." 2) "The chant of “Javid Shah” represents on one level the Iranian people’s desire for something it has enjoyed (or endured, depending on how one feels about monarchy) for the majority of its history." 3) "When protesters stop speaking within the language imposed by the state and instead reach for forbidden symbols, the regime’s authority begins to erode. “Javid Shah” is precisely such a symbol." 4) "He also presented elements of an emergency transitional framework, emphasizing that any future system, including the question of monarchy, must be decided by a national referendum.". 5) "Pahlavi has been non-committal about stepping into the fray. He has said he is willing to lead Iran in a transition in case protesters succeed in ousting the regime in these demonstrations".

Iranian frozen assets ;

• took American hostages --> took American diplomats hostages, this is despite the obvious fact that not all hostages were diplomats, this is clearly an attempt at whitewashing (if you can even call it that to hostage taking) hostage taking.
• and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed strikes by both sides. ----> and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran. Trying to censor the fact that Hezbollah also violated the ceasefire, per the source; 1) "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign, which has killed thousands of people and driven hundreds of thousands from their homes. Hezbollah, which did not take part in the truce ​talks, has also continued its attacks and says it ​will not give up its weapons unless Israel ⁠halts its attacks and withdraws from Lebanon. Netanyahu said the Israeli strikes on Sunday on Beirut's southern outskirts, a district known as Dahiyeh that has long been a Hezbollah stronghold, were ordered in response to Hezbollah firing toward Israel." 2) "Before Sunday, Iran had not targeted Israel since a ceasefire in the wider war started in April, although Hezbollah has done so."
• According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iran -----> According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessen directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iranian retaliation. What the source actually says; "A source familiar with U.S. ​plans told Reuters on Saturday that Washington could make Iranian assets available to Gulf neighbors to repair damage inflicted by Iran." It seems according to HotChickenParmesan, targeting civilian infrastructure of uninvolved Gulf countries counts as "retaliation".

Reza Shah ; I'll make this one shorter since there's a lot and this is already getting long, more sourced info tampering/addition of their own commentary;

• While Pahlavi has long presented himself as an alternative to Iran's ruling clerics, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's authoritarian rule. ----> While Pahlavi has long stylised himself as an alternative to Iran's current system of governance, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's unpopular authoritarian rule.

• Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund Iranian exiles, including Pahlavi. ----> Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund adversaries of Iran, including Pahlavi.

• Protest in Gothenburg Sweden against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026 ---> Iranian monarchist protests in Gothenburg, Sweden, against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026

• During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi predicted that the Islamic regime would collapse in the near future -----> During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government would collapse in the near future

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not yet waded too deeply into the editing history, as members of my family apparently have decided to visit me and let themselves into my house upstairs, so I have to go upstairs to say hello to them or perhaps to a burglar who sounds like they're making something to eat in my kitchen. On an initial glance, it looks like a continuation of the battleground behavior that led this editor to an ANI appearance last week. There was at least one explicit Iran war edit, so I went ahead and also dropped an IPA CT notice, which I do not believe has yet been given to this editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it has become clear from this individual's edits that they are incapable of editing neutrally on the topic of recent Iran-related disputes, and are instead prone to pushing a pro-Iranian POV. However, barring one recent conflict in which both parties were at fault, their editing on India-related topics has been acceptable. The ideal result of this discussion would allow those edits while stopping the disruption on Iran articles. For this reason, I'm proposing that HotChickenParmesan receive a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless/until HCP participates in this discussion and has a convincing explanation for their edits and conduct going forward, I Support a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics also. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support proposed TBAN - their second-to-last edit had a rather aggressive edit summary and is decidedly non-NPOV, such as changing the caption of an image to Reza Pahlavi's pretender ceremonial "swearing in" as the new "Shah of Iran", complete with scare quotes. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban. The quote Blue Sonnet has highlighted is egregious enough on its own, as is this addition: "Reza Pahlavi declared himself the so-called Shah of Iran, stylising himself as "Reza Shah II"" & this fascinating little disclaimer: "(even though no such title nor recognition exists following Iran's transition to a democracy following the Revolution)".

It doesn't end there... "Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government...", "of his so-called Iran Prosperity Project...", "Pahlavi has claimed that around 50,000 (a number yet to be verified)...On the heels of those unverified figures, he claimed..." aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Reza Pahlavi declared himself the so-called Shah of Iran, stylising himself as "Reza Shah II". Please explain to me how the former is any less acceptable than this (the current version): "In 1980, following the death of his father in exile in Cairo, Reza Pahlavi declared himself Shah of Iran, adopting the title Reza Shah II".

The last I checked, the Iranian monarchy was dissolved in 1979, thereby rendering this title moot. How is adding the prefix "so-called" "egregious" if all it does is highlight the fact that the title "Shah of Iran" does not exist, nor did it exist back in 1980 when his "coronation took place.

"(even though no such title nor recognition exists following Iran's transition to a democracy following the Revolution)": what's the problem with this? If not for this clause, it would lead any user to incorrectly assume Reza is still the Shah of Iran, and that the title holds merit and recognition. Would you not hold a similar yardstick for a member of the former princely dynasties in India claiming they are kings or princes, even though no such titles nor privileges are recognised?

"Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government...", "of his so-called Iran Prosperity Project..": Was his prediction correct? If the answer to that is in the negative, I believe the objection is moot.

"Pahlavi has claimed that around 50,000 (a number yet to be verified)...On the heels of those unverified figures, he claimed...": yet again, I redirect your attention to the source, Politico. Reproducing a snippet here: "At least 50,000 officials from inside Iran’s ruling government and military have registered with a secure platform set up to coordinate the ousting of the dictatorship in Tehran, according to a prominent opponent of the regime."

Now, tell me, should we just parrot a figure an individual has ample incentive to lie about or forge? Or should we exercise reasonable scepticism and report objective facts?

"“There’s tens of thousands — the last estimate is over 50,000 at least, maybe more,” Pahlavi, whose supporters refer to him as Iran’s “crown prince,” said in a telephone interview."

Another amusing snippet from the same source. Now, please tell me how a "title" Reza bestowed upon himself and is used only by his supporters somehow lends credence to his current monarchical prerogative. Amusingly though, the royalty infobox on his page also prominently mentions his title: Crown Prince of Iran. Are we literally inventing "facts" here? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not the goal of Wikipedia to present the reader with an editorialized account of the facts or to point out falsehoods. Any such thing would have to be attributed to the sources used. I cannot imagine a case where it would be appropriate to state in any article that someone "prognosticated rather incorrectly" or call something "so-called" in wikivoice. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"It is not the goal of Wikipedia to present the reader with an editorialized account of the facts or to point out falsehoods": where did I claim this? All I did was point out that HistoryofIran's own account of my ostensible "impropriety" is blatantly misleading. Furthermore, it seems you disregarded the fact that Reza is not the Crown Prince of Iran. No such title or distinction or privilege exists. If we proceed with what you are insinuating, why don't we just invent titles and plaster them on everyone's page? The point being: I did not point out falsehoods; I removed titles from Reza's page. He is not a member of any ruling dynasty, and he is certainly not the Crown Prince of Iran.

Furthermore, his page is a stellar embodiment in violation of Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER, chronicling every milquetoast statement, proclamation, and utterance he made. That does not sound like upholding any of Wikipedia's editorial scruples, does it? Lastly, HistoryofIran has an overt bias towards the Iranian monarchy, as evidenced by their own edit summaries. If we consider that, everything fits into place as to why they so zealously guard pages related to Iran (a clear instance of ownership behaviour).

I have temporarily withdrawn myself from editing Reza's page, and shall continue to do so for a while. This, however, does not imply HistoryofIran is in any capacity correct. They have a bias and can't bring themselves to admit to such, for reasons beyond comprehension. Any Wikipedia editor worth their salt can pore through the page for themselves and witness how appallingly it has been composed and maintained, and safeguarded by individuals such as HistoryofIran. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is basically a consolidation or repository of what reliable sources say about a subject. This way, we can stay as neutral and objective as we reasonably can and any reader can independently verify claims through inline citations.

We cannot add our own analysis or opinions - that falls under original research and commentary. This is an encyclopedia and it's just not appropriate to do this.

In all but the most obvious & generic cases, unless a reliable source makes a specific claim, please don't add it to the article. If it does, please add a citation. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN as per CoffeeCrumbs. The big wall of text response from HCP does not make things better because it is seriously hard to understand. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

How did you adjudicate the merits of HistoryofIran's allegations without even going through my rejoinder? That itself suggests your vote is unfounded. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I read your side of the story too, don't worry, I'm saying that it's really long and I feel like some editors might not even want to read it. I'm not sure a wall of text like that is a particularly sharp response as is said in the definition for rejoinder. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, similar to what @Nil Einne pointed out on their talk page, almost all of this editor's contributions are to contentious topics and should have been reverted regardless of any editorial policy because they are not, as of yet, extended confirmed. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of my contributions are to pages dedicated to, inter alia, infrastructure projects and the like. Anyone can verify that. As to the question of reverting my contributions owing to the fact I am an autoconfirmed user, what basis do you have for suggesting that?

"reverted regardless of any editorial policy": wow, impeccable. You are now suggesting we disregard policy and go by your personal idiosyncrasies. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

ARBECR specifically allows edits made in violation of ARBECR to be reverted on sight. This has nothing to do with "personal idiosyncrasies". Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Conceded. Having said that, it still doesn't address the fact that OP suggested the bulk of my contributions are to "contentious topics". That is demonstrably false, and I suggest they recant that remark. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly is. The bulk of your edits are to post-1978 Iranian politics, social groups of South Asia/Indian military history, and a handful of Israel-Palestine-adjacent edits. All three of these are contentious topics on Wikipedia, and explicitly defined as such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Demonstrably false. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I have a fervent penchant for post-1978 Iranian topics when my contributions are far more eclectic and innumerable. My contributions range from topics such as Soviet and allied history, infrastructure, Indian pages (primarily infrastructure and the like given the propensity of India-centric pages to be peppered with grammatical faux pas), to the nobility in India and Goan colonisation of the subcontinent.

"social groups of South Asia/Indian military history": incorrect. Maybe consider scrupulously examining them before jumping to conclusions? The only pages "relevant" to this (and I am being abundantly generous in describing it as "relevant") are those of two descendants of a former royal family. How that constitutes "military history" is beyond me.

Anywho, I shall steer clear of Reza Pahlavi for a wee. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best course of action right now. I don't think anyone wants you booted off the project, some of us just have issues with your Iran-based edits (particularly your tendency to editorialize). In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall steer clear for a wee. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your contributions are "innumerable"? They are definitionally numerable, and that number happens to be one hundred and fifty-one. Hope this helps. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 20:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR only applies to indian social groups and palestine israel conflict.

it doesnt apply to all ctop areas. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is ridiculously long and will not be helpful for your case. Please try to condense it, and perhaps copyedit – you have included sentences like "The summary cited actual policies (namely WP, WP, WP, WP, and WP)". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Trust me when I say this: I tried doing that, I really did. However, the nature of the accusations are such that it warranted a comprehensive response. It is very easy for someone to hurl frivolous accusations by curating a clipped, distorted, and contrived summary of events (as HistoryofIran deviously did), so it's an even tedious chore to rebut them. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the fairness of HistoryofIran's accusations, you need to stop talking about the recent Iran war or anything else covered by ARBECR. There's no need for any discussion on the matter, you made edits you should not have made. It does not matter how perfect your edits are, you're still not allowed to make them. Therefore the only thing you can say when it comes to areas covered under ARBECR is something along the lines of 'I continue to believe my edit was good, but accept I cannot make it until I am extended confirmed therefore I will cease all such edits'. If you're already under scrutiny it's a terrible look when you're warned about violating ARBECR & come to ANI and continue to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/IRP does not have any wide-reaching extended-confirmed restriction, only the standard set. The inappropriate part (regarding current contentious topics) of the edit brought up on HotChickenParmesan's talk page was only that which pertained to the Iran-Israel proxy war. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I was referring to HotChickenParmesan's now collapsed lengthy comment above. Part of it was clearly covered by the Arab-Israeli CTOP restriction e.g. "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign" and "On 9 April, at the beginning of the 2026 Iran war ceasefire". While participating in necessary dispute resolution is allowed, there is no need for HotChickenParmesan to discuss such stuff. At most if they made some edits others disputed they should say (if it's how they feel) that they stand by such edits but recognise they can no longer make them. What edits others made in area covered by the A-I CTOP are definitely irrelevant to them. If others specifically ask them to explain certain edits it will probably be okay for HotChickenParmesan to explain. But frankly I don't see much point discussing edits HotChickenParmesan should never have made regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. I'd encourage a focus on edits HotChickenParmesan can make when analysing any possible Iran topic ban. As I said later, it's HotChickenParmesan's responsibility to navigate the limitations A-I CTOP ECR places on them. If they cannot work out how to do so, then there's IMO no point imposing an Iran topic ban which they'll probably similarly fail to navigate. Yes I know sometimes a wider topic ban can help with boundaries but we're not exactly talking about borderline cases. Instead stuff which directly mention Hezbollah and Israel. And at the lower end, the 2026 Iran war which per the clarification already mentioned to HotChickenParmesan before their response above, is covered. (If an editor cannot work out that the war being covered means a ceasefire of the war also is, I don't think they can successfully navigate a topic ban.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just in case there's some confusion since I never mentioned it here, arbcom has already clarified here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 135#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 "For the purposes of arbitration enforcement, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be considered a part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and anything broadly related to it – including the 2026 Iran war – is part of the contentious topic area.". I don't think this leaves any doubt that stuff about the 2026 Iran war ceasefire would also be covered. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Holy WP:WALLOFTEXT, Batman! As aesurias suggests, you'll definitely want to collapse most of this if you want to be seriously heard out; otherwise, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You can be almost certain that an admin will not be reading all of this, but they might take up a much, much shorter response. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer I genuinely appreciate your input, I really do, but I am at a loss for words. The accusations are heavily curated and clipped to depict me as "pro-Iranian," even though all I did was try to revamp the page per the editorial diktats. The allegations levelled against me are such I had to write this whole wall of text upon waking up, more so in light of the fact a vote was initiated without waiting for my response. My character is under attack, and I am devastated by this malicious act. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a word-a-day calendar? Is today's word "malicious"? I will point you to an edit summary you used yesterday: "...stop accusing other editors of malice and disingenuousness, for you are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What does this have anything to do with the issue at hand? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't know why making personal attacks are a problem or how they're related to the issues at hand, then it ought to be pretty clear why we're discussing editing restrictions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page is instructive. You're given detailed information about relevant policies and guidelines to your edits, with links directly to those policies and guidelines, and then immediately make responses like What is CTOP ECR? You need to be specific. You can't expect me to grasp random acronyms. Not disputing your assessment, but letting you know that when you suggest someone's in violation of something, you need to adduce that provision which directly indicate you didn't read the information given at all and wish to pretend it didn't exist. There and in articles, there's a consistent pattern of you appearing to believe that if you close your eyes hard enough, you can imagine a rule out of existence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. When I stated HistoryofIran is indulging in battleground behaviour, that did not constitute a personal attack. By your erroneous "reasoning", any insinuations of this nature will constitute an ad hominem. I hope you realise how specious that sounds.

"There and in articles, there's a consistent pattern of you appearing to believe that if you close your eyes hard enough, you can imagine a rule out of existence": oh, like the one where I pointed out how Reza Pahlavi's page, the one HistoryofIran is zealously safeguarding, is in breach of Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:SOAP?

"You're given detailed information about relevant policies and guidelines to your edits": the record states nothing of that. In fact, notice how my rejoinder to HistoryofIran's accusations are yet to be addressed, including the itemised breaches I meticulously documented. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Really? There are literally two incredibly detailed contentious topic explanations on your talk page, which you respond to by feigning unawareness of their existence. And there are plenty of other personal attacks above. I'm sorry, but I'm increasingly of the belief that you're just trolling rather than merely misguided. I now strongly support a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed, and a logged warning noting that continued WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:DISRUPTIVE editing may lead to a wider editing sanction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I point out that it's not going to be obvious to a new editor that "CTOP ECR" refers to Wikipedia:Contentious topics and extended confirmed restriction? Nothing in the two editnotices uses those acronyms. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but from the edit they made before, it was quite clear that the context of what was being discussed was understood. They didn't just pretend they didn't know what "CTOP" was, but the entire concept of a contentious topic, that was literally described about four inches away. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In any case, despite saying "prerogative I apparently lack to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If that's something policy dictates I cease partaking in until editorial policy endows me with the said privilege, I will demur." HotChickenParmesan later made this edit in clear violation of the A-I CTOP. This is basically the same as both example they wanted to discuss ("Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran") which I'd said they couldn't and they accepted they couldn't, and the example I had earlier given them as something they cannot do . But also even if my explanations have been terrible, HotChickenParmesan has demonstraed no ability and/or willingness to try to understand perhaps by asking others before they continue to violate. IMO at a minimum an admin should impose a block or logged warning under CTOP so they get the warning. There's not much point discussing a topic ban if they're already not even able to abide by the effective topic ban of ARB ECR for A-I, our only option may be to just indefinitely block them from the whole site. Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention, lets remember while I have repeatedly emphasised to them that it applies to the 2026 Iran war broadly construed, and especially Hezbollah vs Israel, there shouldn't really be confusion here anyway. We're specifically talking about Hezbollah a largely Arab force vs Israel, regardless of what Iran might have also done, so it should be obvious it's part of the Arab-Israeli conflict even from a plain reading of the restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The last I checked, the topic of Iranian frozen assets stems from a dispute (the 1979 hostage crisis) largely independent of the Arab-Palestinian conflict. I am not sure why you keep conflating the two, when it is evident that the distinction is palpably clear. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You made an edit about Hezbollah Israel attacking Israel Hezbollah, that's clearly part of the conflict. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC) 03:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Jesus, this clownery is so pronounced I couldn't even bother responding to this. If refraining from touching pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow implies I am not even allowed to mention the words "Israel" or "Hezbollah" on pages unrelated to that topic, then I am certain you are just clowning around. Kudos though, this is one of the most hilarious statements I have come across. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, if you actually read any of the information given to you or any of the pages outlining the rules, you would understand that this is precisely incorrect. With a few very specific exemptions, you cannot mention anything related to the Arab-Israel conflict on the article for gravy, clouds, the 1962 World Series, Niels Bohr, the Louvre, John Steinbeck, or any other page, whether that page is directly related to the topic or not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Feigned ignorance? You need to pipe it down. Accusing me of hurling personal attacks when all I have done is outline HistoryofIran's battleground conduct doesn't count as one. I am not certain whether you are deliberately being obtuse, but it is certain that you are resorting to using obscure phrases and other terminology, which another user kindly pointed out, to obscure the matter and depict me as someone "feigning ignorance".

Do you want an actual example of a personal attack? Go through your remark again.

And, no, just because I happened to edit pages related to the Israel-Arab conflict doesn't imply I am somehow abundantly familiar with acronyms you made up.

"Nothing in the two editnotices uses those acronyms": lest you forget. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics per my report and the comments of the three other users in favour of the topic ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try, kiddo, but your vote doesn't count. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. The mods typically count the vote of the person who started it (and, for that matter, would likely count your vote as well). In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Then I am afraid such a mechanism is fatuous. Imagine suing someone, and the judge places you in the jury to adjudicate the merits of the same suit you brought against the defendant.

If such a "vote" includes the plaintiff's preferences themselves, then I am afraid to admit, and I say this with characteristic restraint, that it is a botched procedure that clearly constitutes a mistrial. By that same yardstick, I would even argue my vote shouldn't count. Why should it? Of course, the plaintiff would vote for the defendant's culpability, whereas the defendant would vote against. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, it's a private website with specific policies. It's entirely possible for the OP to have changed their mind during the discussion (I know I have).

The bottom line is that this is how Wikipedia works, whether you agree with it or not. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Merits of the discussion here aside, I have to argue that being a private website does not absolve one from exercising fairness. That way, it runs the risk of having a flawed outcome. There exists no procedural fairness in such circumstances. Let's agree to disagree.

Also, if I may ask, in what capacity have you changed your mind? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

As a philosopher, HCP does have a point here about procedural justice. The Wikipedia community ought to remove parties within disputes from voting. Since the nature of this board is adjudication, principles of ethics remain most salient and not only for courts of law. UnironicEditor (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see the upsides of such a rule, but given the already limited engagement in many of these threads restricting it to people that are not WP:INVOLVED it would lead to fewer people with the context around the discussion being able to meaningfully contribute. Also, trite as it is, AN/I threads are not a vote, and people who are involved in the discussion are generally not permitted to close it. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies as I'm not sure what you mean by capacity as I'm just a standard editor, but there are times where I've logged a report and the editor concerned showed a good understanding of their mistakes and learned what they should do differently. In those cases, there was no need for any further action and I was very happy to change my mind on those instances. Sadly, it was only one or two that I can remember off the top of my head. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

They were the one who started this thread, so it counts! GarethBaloney (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you sue someone in a court of law and then beseech the magistrate presiding over the trial to place you in the jury? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You have said all you need to say at this point and I would advise you to stop with the constant replies, which are now well past WP:BLUDGEONING. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not being obtuse, but the fact that the vast majority of those who voted for the proposition have admitted they haven't even read my rejoinder in the slightest (coupled with the fact that OP wrote an account that curiously omits the diffs), makes it rather obscenely difficult to believe this is fair. Has anyone bothered to go through the current live version of Reza Pahlavi's page, the same version HistoryofIran keeps defending? Has any editor worth their salt admitted to the fact that the page is a scathing exemplar in how not to write a Wikipedia page? Wikipedia:SOAP and Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER are two of the prime policies it breaks (and which HistoryofIran keeps indulging in), but I don't see that being discussed here. Instead, a twisted, contrived account of my contributions was furnished as proof of my "pro-Iranian" bent, even though I hold no such distinction and simply wanted an objective, factual account of circumstances. This is also amusing in light of the fact that HistoryofIran has admitted to monarchist tendencies, as evidenced by their edits and history, which everyone seems to be ignoring lately.

I have already stated I shall steer clear of Reza Pahlavi's page until I have amassed sufficient contribution history, but I sincerely hope anyone conducting a vote, which, by the way, began even before I could write my response, goes through my rejoinder. I am quite certain most haven't (they admit to such too). HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss editor behavior, not article content. The disposition of the articles you and HistoryofIran have edited are not the point of contention in this discussion for most of the participants. Many editors have been able to follow dispute resolution processes to figure out what should and shouldn't be included on an article despite their personal biases, without assuming bad faith of others. The purpose of this thread should be to come to a mutual understanding and prevent heated disagreements like this from happening in the future; a lot of editors are of the opinion now that the best way to prevent further disruption would be a topic ban or block. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support site ban although I'm fine if an admin simply indefinitely blocks them and we close this. I see no point messing around with topic bans when the editor cannot even obey the Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP restriction in such a simple case, and has shown no willingness to try to learn where they are going wrong. There's no way they can obey an Iran topic ban of any sort either. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that you are so keen on stretching the extent of a topic-wide embargo is remarkably obtuse. I hope you have noticed that. If you haven't, then I wonder what credentials you have to contribute to this discussion. You accused me of violating the Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban. Your proof? The fact that I mentioned "Israel" and "Hezbollah" on a page unrelated to that topic.

  More critically, we need to examine whether you have the appropriate credentials to even partake in this discussion, given the hilarious lengths to which you have jumped to contrive a case against me. You do not come in good faith, and that's evident. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  That string of personal attacks, concluding with the one immediately above, results in a 31 hour block. This does not preclude further action, and further problems with personal attacks or poor behavior, particularly in contentious topics, could result in an indefinite block. The only reason this initial block is not indefinite is that almost all the edits in question occurred before the editor was aware of CTOPS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The credentials Nil Einne has are the only ones needed: being an editor in good standing, whose voice will have weight because of their 20 years of highly productive work on this project. And yes, except for a few very specific exemptions, just mentioning anything related to the Arab/Palestinian conflict, anywhere on Wikipedia, is forbidden for editors without extended-confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  In the short term, they need a temporary block for the long list of personal attacks and condescending behaviour toward multiple editors in this discussion (including in the reply directly above)

  • HistoryofIran [is] forcibly shoving a contorted, contrive narrative down Wikipedia
  • they [HistoryofIran] hold no obeisance to neutrality, and are happy to shove an agenda
  • HistoryofIran is deliberately and maliciously framing content disputes as conduct disputes
  • [HistoryofIran is] reducing the said pages to a mockery, rendering them a vestibule to peddle pro-Shah messagery, reducing the said pages to a newspaper chronicling virtually every milquetoast, banal snippet they utter as if they are pearls of wisdom
  • It is very easy for someone to hurl frivolous accusations by curating a clipped, distorted, and contrived summary of events (as HistoryofIran deviously did)
  • My character is under attack, and I am devastated by this malicious act. (emphasis is mine)
  • Jesus, this clownery is so pronounced I couldn't even bother responding to this...I am certain you are just clowning around. Kudos though, this is one of the most hilarious statements I have come across.
  • Feigned ignorance? You need to pipe it down.
  • I am not certain whether you are deliberately being obtuse
  • ...nice try, kiddo, but your vote doesn't count.
  • The fact that you are so keen on stretching the extent of a topic-wide embargo is remarkably obtuse. I hope you have noticed that. If you haven't, then I wonder what credentials you have to contribute to this discussion. (emphasis is mine)
  • You do not come in good faith, and that's evident

  aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, @Rsjaffe read my mind aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can we bring this back to the content issues for a moment? While there are clear conduct concerns, some of the underlying content disputes seem unresolved. Looking at a number of the diffs, HotChickenParmesan appears to be raising some legitimate questions regarding undue weight, editorial tone, and whether certain sections may have become overly news-driven. Tasasiki (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  ANI isn't the place to discuss content, only conduct. You can discuss HCP's concerns on the talk pages of the relevant articles if you want. It only becomes an issue for ANI if you can show that an individual editor is POV pushing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  No?... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Could I ask how you found this conversation? Your last edits are from 2 months ago, when you were edit warring at (wow!) Reza Pahlavi and other Iran-related pages, resulting in this ANI report against you, which in turn produced some fascinatingly familiar statements from you, including "We shouldn’t under any circumstances think that the monarchists speak for all Iranians — they certainly do not". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Aesurias: I found this conversation by editing at (wow!) Reza Pahlavi. Is that wrong? I could also ask how you found this conversation, but I instead rather discuss the issue at hand. Thank you! Tasasiki (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Pahlavi's page does not contain a direct link to this discussion, but regardless, you haven't edited that page (or any page) for more than 2 months. Did you travel through time to find this conversation? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Enough; if you want to report me for posting here, go ahead. In the meantime, I'll start a talk page discussion and ping you there. Tasasiki (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know why a clear answer is so difficult. Have you perhaps forgotten? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed this user editing several pages I was interested in, and that thread led me here. As I already said, if you have any legitimate concerns, you may post a report about it. Tasasiki (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  No, I don't have concerns. That is the logical explanation, so I don't know why it was not the first explanation. Thank you for stating it explicitly. 👍🏼 aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm just baffled by your hostility here, and I'm not obliged to answer to your baseless accusations 👍🏼 Tasasiki (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's incredibly easy to fish out this discussion. The page history chronicles the edit war, and has my name affixed to it. Given his previous efforts, I bet they scoured my profile and stumbled upon the ANI discussion.

  I wonder how you found out about this thread though. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I find it quite amusing how you kept insinuating my conduct constituted effrontery, and yet, have no qualms in imputing malice to others. If you are trying to imply I am a sockpuppet, I have nothing but dismay and scorn. Alternatively, if you are trying to imply this constitutes some kind of concerted effort to reform Pahlavi's page, you are mistaken. His page is a prime exemplar in documenting all the breaches of editorial standards at Wikipedia, as is exemplified by the contravention of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:NPOV.

  Perhaps you should come clean and admit to COIs (if any). HotChickenParmesan (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I decided to try one more time on their talk page to get them to drop the incivility. Hopefully they're receptive. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  For my part, I'll withdraw from this. HotChickenParmesan clearly either isn't understanding or accepting my explanations, and I think I've said enough about my concerns over their editing here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My frustration merely stemmed from the fact that the user has a documented history of curating a curiously biased variant of the page, and peremptorily reporting individuals who rock the boat by weaponising the ANI forum. It seems HotChickenParmesan can't stop. I'll support an indef block at this point as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Support indefinite block WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct has no place on Wikipedia and it isn't necessarily tied to a topic. Case in point, it is even more harmful when a user would choose to maintain such a behavior in the middle of a report. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

While it is commendable that HotChickenParmesan has demonstrated remorse, and such reflection should be encouraged, I believe there are circumstances in which feelings of regret may come too little, too late, and this may be one of those cases. Nevertheless, as a second option, I would Support a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics if that is determined as the community consensus. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, keep stalking me. That definitely helps. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@HotChickenParmesan At this stage, you're well past the stage where flinging something back at an editor is going to do you any favours. The only way out of this I can see for you here is to reflect on your actions, apologise for the personal attacks, and promise not to make them again. That way you might not get blocked. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I have already withdrawn from making any contributions to pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Moreover, as another user kindly pointed out, I am not involved in this matter anymore. However, constantly patrolling my talk page to haul me up sounds a wee outlandish, does it not? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You're about to be community banned because of the personal attacks you're making. A CBAN is a much harder place to come back from than even an indefinite block by an admin. This is way beyonf your edits around that conflict. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you suggest I do? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I literally just told you - you need to recognise that your behaviour towards other editors has been severely lacking, and after reflecting on that apologise for your uncivil comments to the relevant editors, with a solemn promise to change your ways. I can't guarantee that will be enough, but to me that's the bare minimum at this point. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If you ask me to express my contrition forthwith, then such repentance will be insincere for obvious reasons: a person in my position who is otherwise determined to be a troll would enthusiastically rush to bury the hatchet. I will have to take time to reflect on these proceedings, given the charged nature, and, thereafter, ponder over what went wrong.

Having said that, I withdraw my previous remarks. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The key to being a Wikipedian is you have to realise that others will disagree with you on matters. If an editor is behaving in a manner that makes you believe they are a troll, then the course of action isn't to breach Wikipedia's civility policy, as that puts you firmly on the wrong side of Wikipedia policy, but to either walk away or find formal means of dealing with the matter - be that Dispute Resolution, 3rd Opinion, or opening a report here at ANI. The instant you start throwing personal attacks and being uncivil, you're the one attracting scrutiny and sanction. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. That is why I am choosing to walk away, and, hereafter, exercise the provisions of the dispute resolution and third opinion mechanisms. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That is the best course of action in instances like this. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

HotChickenParmesan, you have been told by several users that the diffs listed here of you are problematic, trying to drag it to third opinion or dispute resolution would not be constructive. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. I was really hoping they'd stop making personal attacks. Unfortunately, I think they've crossed the line one too many times here, even after being blocked and warned. Support indef. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate HCP withdrawing the offensive remarks, this is a very positive step. Due to this progress, I now stand in agreement with Danners430 that a final warning is the best course of action, possibly with a TBAN if others consider it necessary. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Given they are now engaging with this discussion constructively , and have agreed to withdraw their remarks, I propose a second (and final) chance for this editor - they are still reasonably new to the project, and it seems lost the rag during a heated dispute, for which they've now apologised and agreed to use the proper channels for future disputes. As such, I'd support a temporary TBAN at most, but with a final warning. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Support indef block. They have already stated, on Tasasiki's talk page, that they plan to resume editing Pahlavi's page when they are extended confirmed. I have zero belief that they have the intent to try to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Had this conversation been limited solely to issues with contentious editing, I would find a topic ban to be sufficient. That is not the case. After trying to argue with & insulting no less than a dozen editors, I have little faith that this editor has suddenly come to their senses. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics. I don't think a simple warning is sufficient and after reading what Aesurias's referenced, I got the same inkling that they intend to treat this WP:BLP as a battle they intend to win as soon as they get a chance. At the same time, I think an indef is on the strong side. I'd weakly support an indef, if the community is otherwise in consensus, but it's not my first choice. I'd like to see this editor get a chance to show they can be productive in areas that have lower personal stakes for them, such as the transportation articles they've mostly edited harmlessly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support temporary TBAN at most, but with a final warning. This is a new editor who became involved in a highly contentious topic and attempted to address what they saw as neutrality and due-weight issues. Some of their edits were constructive, while others were not (mainly the ones presented here). Had there been an earlier talk page discussion, I think they might have learned much sooner how consensus is built and where some of their edits fell short. Instead, the matter escalated quickly to ANI. HCP has since withdrawn their remarks and apologised for their comments, which I think demonstrates a willingness to reflect and work constructively. I would support allowing them to continue contributing in less contentious areas for a while and, later on, giving them another opportunity to edit these topics if they demonstrate they can do so collaboratively. Tasasiki (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Had there been an earlier talk page discussion, I think they might have learned much sooner how consensus is built and where some of their edits fell short.

  This is contradicted by their behaviour here and before the ANI thread. Respectfully, I don't see how the talk page would have made a magical difference.

  HCP has since withdrawn their remarks and apologised for their comments, which I think demonstrates a willingness to reflect and work constructively.

  Which is good, but they finally did that only after a lot of opposition by other users, including a block, which is again why I don't see that the talk page could have the potential to make a difference. Still, they also said they would drag this to third opinion or dispute resolution , despite being told many times by now that these diffs are far from constructive. As CoffeeCrumbs mentioned, they do indeed seem to have personal stakes with Iran-related topic, and I don't see that suddenly changing. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that a short TBAN won't achieve anything - it'll take time for them to get to EC regardless, so when does it even start? If it's immediate then it's essentially pointless.

  They have a fundamental problem understanding what's an appropriate edit, something that's exacerbated in contentious areas. These quoted edits are inherently problematic and little understanding was shown when those problems were pointed out. .

  I don't think a full indef is warranted since the attacks were withdrawn, but we still have a problem with their overall editing in this topic area which needs to be addressed. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support a sanction and warning, but oppose anything as strong as or stronger than an indef The editor shows that they can learn, give 'em some rope. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support T-Ban. At first I was strongly in favor of an idef based on their behavior on this ANI page and the continuous disruption shown during editing the articles. However, they seem to be dialing it back. But, seeing is believing. Also, the continuous wiki lawyering and battleground behavior while editing does not set well with me. They need to demonstrate a capability of editing articles that are other than CTOP before the ban is lifted, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Did they really refer to Iran's transition to a democracy following the Revolution? No opinion at this time on an indefinite block or site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing of Droop quota and related articles

Proportional elections (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest identity of an editor who has, for ~2 years, repeatedly reinserted the same disputed material into Droop quota, single transferable vote, instant-runoff voting, and related articles against a talk-page consensus while continuing to bludgeon the discussion. The editor insists the article should foreground the "original"/rounded Droop quota (votes/(seats+1), rounded up, +1), while consensus is to present the mathematically clean "exact" Droop quota (votes/(seats+1)) first. Editor also repeatedly introduces major mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting, excessively verbose content, and mathematical errors (making a case for a WP:CIR ban).

Examples of edit-warring include:

• WP:IDHT: claims "there is no consensus in talk"
• Feb 2025
• Apr 2026
• Apr 2026
• 2026-04-25
• 2026-04-25 "Defended original Droop against exact Droop"

Prior addresses/ranges: 68.150.205.46 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), 68.148.137.191 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), 2604:3D09:8880:11E0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 2604:3D09:887F:4680::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The article was semi-protected once for this and the behavior resumed on expiry.

Consensus on the talk page favors presenting the mathematical/exact Droop quota, with multiple uninvolved editors providing sources and reasoning:

• DominikPeters (): "the mathematically correct way to use the Droop quota is as follows: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above votes/(seats+1)."
• Affinepplan (): "I think the exact Droop quota should be presented as "correct" with others as historical artifacts. it is quite common, in general, in the sciences, that the exact formulation of a particular concept may be refined over time and yet keep the same name. see for example mathematical "continuity" which has been reformalized many times with new tools over the centuries".
• Quantling (): "As a mathematician deriving this from scratch, I would [...] reflect the mathematical limit as ε → 0+."
• Joeyconnick () has reverted similar edits.

These editors and I have explained the issue with sources over three years, which the user continues to ignore (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and engages in repeated WP:BLUDGEONING, creating massive walls of text repeating the exact same arguments over and over.

Proposed remedy: that Proportional elections be topic-banned from electoral quotas, electoral systems, social choice, and related topics, broadly construed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

you seem not to have notified the party you're reporting. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now been notified.

I believe Closed Limelike Curves is wrong to push "exact Droop". But it is not used in any official application of Droop.

And his push in this direction is confused by saying you must have more than exact Droop to be elected, which really means achieving the real Droop as minimum.

Adherence to Thomas Droop's Droop (not exact Droop) is supported by this statement

• DominikPeters ([54]): "the mathematically correct way to use the Droop quota is as follows: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above votes/(seats+1)."above" exact Droop

despite CLC claiming that remark as support for his position.

I also believe Joey Connick has been clear that Thomas Droop's Droop should be recognized as crucial to the Wiki Droop quota article.

I have always said that exact Droop can be mentioned in Wiki Droop but should not be presented as the only form of Droop. It is not used in any official application today.

Any change I had made to Droop article has been equally or worse undone by CLC, so the fight, if there is one, is not one sided.

It seemed inaccurate and unfair to me for the presentation of exact Droop to be continued for months and months, and after a cooling off period, I did put forward my reasonable and factual-based correctives.

much of my reasoning is presented in the Talk section of the article.

Extending this fight to a ban on my contributions in other contexts is just malicious, IMO Proportional elections (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

"the mathematically correct way to use the Droop quota is as follows: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above votes/(seats+1)."above" exact Droop

Correct, which is how the article presented it: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above the Droop quota, defined in the article as votes / ( s e a t s + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\text{votes}}/(seats+1)} . This has been explained to you, repeatedly, on Talk. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe in past you have said that to be elected you only need to have exact Droop.

but if you are now saying you need more than exact Droop, then it would be clearer to say you need votes/seats plus 1, plus 1. which is what Thomas Hare said when he invented STV.

Dominik... is saying that you must have more than exact Droop to be elected. I agree - and Thomas Hare's writings say the same.

Thomas Droop's Droop quota is more than exact Droop.

in Thomas Droop's conception a candidate needs to have Droop to be elected, not more than Droop, although of course most successful candidates do get more than Droop, and then Droop is used to calculate surplus votes

the quota is used to define surplus votes and that is where the blurring of exact Droop or Droop, and achieving or surpassing the quota, become apparent.

in the example in the article as previously presented, someone was elected by surpassing exact Droop then was left just with exact Droop when his surplus was transferred.

in no STV system used today is a successful candidate left with just exact Droop, always votes/seats plus 1, plus 1.

in no system is someone elected by achieving a number of votes, then left with a different number of votes after transfer of surplus votes (unless many votes are nontransferable).

But in past the article did indicate that - successful cand needed more than Exact Droop but was left with just exact Droop. ~2026-36655-16 (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to relitigate the original content dispute in ANI. I will simply reiterate that the consensus of editors and reliable sources was that your claim that you need votes/seats plus 1, plus 1 is not correct, because there are real numbers between x and x+1. This has been explained to you, repeatedly, by several other editors, and you have either refused to listen or are not able to understand. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to go over it either.

I don't think I used term "need" regarding Droop Quota.

I am saying that that Droop, not exact Droop or something more than exact Droop, is how Thomas Droop invented it, and that is how it is used in every application in the world today.

There are fractional numbers between votes/seats plus 1, and votes/seats plus 1, plus 1. but no whole numbers. Is that why you mean by real numbers?

Are you saying that one of those fractions is the quota you see as being necessary to be elected, and not exact Droop at all?

Dominik says you need more than votes/seats plus 1, so that is not exact Droop as being enough to be elected. at least there is no consensus.

I see no consensus saying that Thomas Droop meant "exact Droop" when he used term Droop quota and no consensus that exact Droop is enough to be elected in STV when Droop quota is used. Proportional elections (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

There are fractional numbers between votes/seats plus 1, and votes/seats plus 1, plus 1. but no whole numbers. If the number of votes is not an integer multiple of (number of seats plus 1), then there is always exactly one whole number between these two numbers. For example, if the number of votes is 7 and the numbers of seats is 2, then (# votes)/(# seats + 1) = 7/3, (# votes)/(# seats + 1) + 1 = 10/3, and the whole number 3 is between 7/3 and 10/3. --JBL (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

where did 10/3 come from?

choice I see it is between Exact Droop (votes/seats plus 1) and Droop's Droop (votes/seats plus 1, plus 1, rounded off)

the number of votes (7) does not change either way.

so exact Droop is 7/3 with fraction left as is perhaps or rounded down to 2?

Droop's Droop 7/3 = 2.33, rounded up = 3

so there is no whole number between exact Droop and Droop's Droop when two seats filled in a contest with 7 votes.

in the example given in the article, you have 100 valid votes/3 plus 1 = 25.

so in that case again there is no whole number between exact Droop (25) and Droop's Droop (26).

and then to be elected, the example says you need more than 25. Jefferson is not elected in first round even those he has a full "exact Droop" quota of votes.

so apparently CLC is saying that the exact Droop is the quota but then he is saying through his example you need more than that to be elected -- perhaps a whole number of votes more or perhaps a fraction of a vote more - it is unclear.

perhaps CLC is confusing the terms threshold and quota. Proportional elections (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

10/3 is 7/3 + 1. It is one of the two numbers that you keep mentioning. This is a basic fact of arithmetic. It is possible that you do not have the mathematical knowledge necessary to edit effectively in this area. --JBL (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

as Henry Droop envisioned it,the Droop quota is derived by votes/seats +1, rounding down and adding one,

or similarly, votes/seats +1, plus 1, then rounded down.

7 votes is uncomfortably small number of votes to work with but that is the case you gave.

7/2+1 = 2.33

rounded down to 2

then add 1 is 3.

no government STV election conducted today uses a number like 10/3 as Droop quota.

it would use a whole number. Proportional elections (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no consensus saying that Thomas Droop meant "exact Droop" when he used term Droop quota and no consensus that exact Droop is enough to be elected in STV when Droop quota is used.

Neither of those is the dispute. The dispute was "should we present the fractional version of the Droop quota first, then mention most jurisdictions round it up for historical reasons, or should we present the rounded version as the main one?" This settled with a consensus to emphasize the non-integer version favored by mathematicians, rather than the integer version used mainly by politicians. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

And TBC: Proportional elections is misrepresenting Dr. Peters here, given he explicitly linked and highlighted a footnote from an article where he wrote The quota 𝑞 = 𝑛/(𝑘 + 1) is known as the Droop quota. Proportional elections clearly saw this and understood Dr. Peters' comments to be an argument against him, as he posted a lengthy reply arguing against Dr. Peters.

While I originally asked for a limited topic ban, seeing them misrepresent what they and other participants were thinking like this gives me enough "not here" vibes to suggest we should consider a full ban. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

in one place apparently Peters says Droop is what we are calling exact Droop, which I do disagree with,

and in another place as quoted above, he is saying you need more than exact Droop to be elected so even he is loosely-goosey on how it would work.

the choice is not fractional version versus rounded version -- it is about adding the extra "one" as Droop quota does in every application in the world today or saying "exact Droop" is the quota, even if it is not used as true quota anyway.

the example in the article does not have a fractional number as exact quota - it is a whole number.

and exact quota is not used as the quota anyway -- the example shows Jefferson needed more than that to be elected.

so let's just stick with Droop as Thomas Droop invented it and as it is used in every election today, and drop talk of this elusive exact Droop. Proportional elections (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No. You have been bludgeoning this conversation for 2 years now, and from the looks of this comment, you're still digging the hole deeper for yourself. You continuously ignore the consensus of other editors simply because they disagree with you. At this point, if you want to avoid a permanent ban instead of a narrowly-scoped topic ban, you should admit being right is not enough and that "my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to be a content dispute at its core, so I will ask both editors to eschew the content aspect, and focus on the behavioral issues at play, namely the accusations of bludgeoning and repeated additions against community consensus.

Looking at the recent discussions on the topic, Talk:Droop quota § Inclusion of plus-one in Droop quota focuses strongly on mathematical derivations, but has remarkably few mentions of the literature, which is the primary criterion by which we should decide the due weight to give to each of the two methods.

I will note that two of the editors involved in the talk page discussions (Affinepplan and User:180 Degree Open Angedre) have been blocked by ArbCom, the latter for off-wiki coordination of disruptive editing, specifically in regard to voting reform and activism. Because of this, evaluating a true consensus based on recent talk page discussions becomes more difficult.

I would suggest an RfC as an option to determine due weight, and will echo @Closed Limelike Curves's description of the issue as a possible RfC question: whether to start by describing the mathematical Droop quota (no rounding) before noting most legal codes specify you should round it, or if we should start by describing the rounded version and then talk about an unrounded version (emphasis in original). To satisfy WP:RFCNEUTRAL, we may want to find another formulation than mathematical, or even provide the relevant formulas for each, but this can be a good first draft. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of emphasis on what sources say in the discussion is striking. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there was some commentary on the sources, but it was pretty brief because we acknowledged the sources contradict each other in how they define "Droop quota". Mathematical sources usually use it to mean the number of votes divided by the number of seats plus one, generalizing the idea of a majority (x>50%). Legal codes generally add one to this total because they copy the exact wording from Droop, who made a minor mistake equivalent to the common error of defining a majority as x≥50%+1 (which is wrong for odd numbers or weighted voting). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

^TBC, he's always like that. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The fundamental issue with this editor is they do not understand arguing nonstop that their claims are true does not excuse conduct. Every time I try to open a discussion with them about their edit-warring, walls of text, etc. they jump right back to repeating the same arguments that were rejected by the other editors. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong reminder that this is not the place to reiterate content disputes. You have been invited to open an RfC for that purpose, but this thread should stay focus on the conduct issues. Repeated walls of text like this one can appear to be bludgeoning. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:30, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know how else to respond to JBL's saying:

"I agree that the lack of emphasis on what sources say in the discussion is striking."

Wasn't he saying we should emphasize what sources say? Proportional elections (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

On the article Talk page yes, but not on an Administrator noticeboard where we're discussing behavioural aspects. JBL was referring to lack of discussion elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it should continue here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I misunderstood.

I have presented much of my case in the Talk page for Droop quota, already. Proportional elections (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I can open one if you think it's necessary, but I want to keep this focused on conduct. If Proportional elections wanted to overturn the consensus established on the talk page, an RfC would be an appropriate way to do it, as an admin informed them of last year. The issue is the user ignored this and tried to get their way by edit-warring and bludgeoning the rest of the editors into exhaustion, even after receiving several warnings from myself and another from an administrator here. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, on Affinepplan: AFAIK this discussion is unrelated to that canvassing incident. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've started the RfC at Talk:Droop quota § Request for comment. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 09:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Lazarbeem adding copyvios and pushing POV

Lazarbeem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam) Previous cases: Here and here.

The previous discussion about his behaviour was closed at around April. From then on, he has...

• Inserted/created copyvios (see talk page messages)
• Created a POV-pushing list that got deleted
• Reverted other users' sourced edits as "vandalism".

Looking at his talk page, he has never responded to attempts to communicate and requests to change. However, as he has indeed made a count of useful contributions, such as adding to, and updating lists, its possible that he does not know how to edit productively in other areas. Therefore, I propose, at least, an involuntary mentorship be applied to him. -- Least Action (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If he has never responded to attempts to communicate, then he needs the same as applied to other recent similar cases: a block from article space until he’s ready to talk. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Lazarbeem has responded to me over substantive disagreements. I've had my issues with them regarding WP:DUE and documenting the actions of Canadian extremist groups and regarding some sourcing issues in other places but they have seemed willing to listen and to compromise. With that being said, COPYVIO stuff really isn't a speciality of mine and so I will defer to others if that's a pervasive problem. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

"Involuntary mentorship" is not a thing we can demand or provide. @Least Action, you'll have to provide diffs of the behaviour you find objectionable. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The copyvio inserted here have already been deleted; other possible copyvios are: Battle of Hobdy's Bridge, probably copied from here; his revert of sourced edits as vandalism, happened in 2025, but I misread the date when posting the case. Copyvios were not mentioned in previous cases. -- Least Action (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted that article. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I got a question, what makes an edit copyrighted? The wording used or the source itself? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The verbatim copying of several sentences is pretty clearly the problem in this case. Note, though, that we also don't like taking a verbatim sentence and then changing the words gradually until you get something you can claim is different - that's WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. As for the source, there's nothing wrong - at least in terms of copyright, in using it as a source for information - but that means putting things in your own words. (I haven't evaluated the source for whether I think it is a WP:RS.) Morwen (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait I got an idea, what if I fix every single article that had a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING problem in order to redeem myself. That being Pigeon Hill Raid, Battle of Kowang-san, Battle of Chail-li, Sir Stanley Matthews Cup, and Draft:2020s Revival of Christianity in the Western world Lazarbeem (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also maybe even the Battle of Hobdy's Bridge article. As in make a new one but with proper paraphrasing Lazarbeem (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

that's not a bad idea, but you know what would be even better? identifying the ones I haven't found yet. Morwen (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok so anything that has been directly copied word for word from the source I find and fix right? Lazarbeem (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm just asking so that I get this right Lazarbeem (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

sure. but note identifying and removing it is more important than writing replacement text. Morwen (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood but shouldn't I avoid turning an article into a stub? And what if a direct quote is needed for context should I keep it, change it or remove it? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles being stubs, partly nonsensical, or even deleted is better than them having copyvio. Nobody is saying you are not allowed to use quotes at all but if you're uncertain about the difference between quoting and close paraphrasing, or how much quoting might be excessive, then I would err on the side of caution. Morwen (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The priority is getting rid on anything that could get Wikipedia into legal trouble. We can focus on how pretty the website looks after that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for informing me. In terms of images can I just remove ones I see are copyrighted or do I have to start a deletion process for them on wikicommons? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of an image that might be in question? Morwen (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Like a copyrighted image. For example the logo of a corporation that was just copy-pasted into wikicommons Lazarbeem (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you done such a thing? I don't see any uploads from you either here or on commons? Morwen (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

No I haven't. I'm just asking in case I come across it Lazarbeem (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If I were you I'd concentrate on identifying other copyvios you have done so we can delete it, rather than worry about what other people might have done. Morwen (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok (insert thumbs up here) Lazarbeem (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Both, ideally - swap it for a better/more appropriate image if at all possible (so often you'll find a better one that was recently uploaded or just missed), then nip along to Commons and tag as needed. That'll save the article from being left without an image. You can also just change it if you aren't sure about deletion but think a new image is better. If it's a controversial/popular article (or you're unsure), it's usually best to ask for opinions on the Talk page before taking action.

If you can answer Morwen's question above, it'll give us an idea of what sort of concerns you have. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The previous case was archived without a close (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1220#Lazarbeem, endless WP:SYNTH and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing across contentious topics). I had a couple disputes with them since then, such as when they added a number for those killed in the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive using numbers of total deaths from 1 June 2023 to 4 January 2024 (there was no mention of the offensive in the source), which was both starting before the offensive began and ending after it ended. They defended it as a "rough figure". I don't know if a mentorship would help; many people have tried explaining to them the policies on OR/synth without success. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As the initiator of the previous thread about this editor, I remain of the same opinion, they are not fit to edit WP:RUSUKR. The fact that they have only continued doing damage after no action was taken and it was archived without a close means that is likely to continue unless an administrator actually puts a stop to them, there have been exhausting efforts to try to get this editor to follow policy, they're just too prone to their POV pushing. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I had to reduce Pigeon Hill Raid (now reduced to a stub), and have found more copyvio at Battle of Kowang-san and Battle of Chail-li and Sir Stanley Matthews Cup. Draft:2020s Revival of Christianity in the Western world appears to have paraphrasing issues as well. I have attempted to get the user to help by asking whether the remaining text in Pigeon Hill Raid was also copied and, well, you can see how that conversation went. Morwen (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It's just that prior to yesterday I didn't even know that WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING was a thing Lazarbeem (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Took me not very long at all to find another example, at Pigeon Hill Raid: source says These troops were all inexperienced volunteers, some of whom had never handled a rifle before. we say All of these men were inexperienced volunteers, some of which had never even handled a rifle before. and source says As soon as the Fenians appeared at St. Armand, Captain Carter hastily withdrew his force as he over estimated Fenian military strength and believed he needed reinforcements. and we say When the Fenians reached St. Armand, Carter overestimated the size of the Fenian force and withdrew his regiment, believing that he needed reinforcements. Morwen (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the example Lazarbeem (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Two questions (a) Do you see the problem? (b) can you help us deal with the problem? Morwen (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

a) Maybe that it's too similar to the source's wording?

b) I can help deal with the problem. Lazarbeem (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

How would you deal with the problem? can you elaborate? -- Least Action (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I would try to correct whatever the issue is with help from other editors Lazarbeem (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User still editing on ECP area after warnings

Iswarsena khola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Iswarsena khola was already warned multiple times against editing ECP area regarding Indian military and caste related topics. However, he is still continuing to edit warring in this area and ignoring the warnings. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, continued ECR edits, absolutely no communication. A block at least until they acknowledge the EC restrictions seems warranted. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, further disruption should lead to escalating blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Still going. I've blocked for a week. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The usage of signatures to canvas for any outcome

User ignoring talk page warnings and advice

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

This user has been creating half-baked stub articles about Australian indoor sport venues. They have ignored my advice here and are continuing to create articles without cats and without including the {{reflist}} template. Looking at the user's talk page history, they have had multiple warnings in the past and have chosen not to engage with their talk page. I'm considering draftifying all of their recent article creations as they lack content and sources and may not meet WP:GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

HistoryOfOceania appears to have made no attempt to respond to comments on their talk page, or anywhere else. I believe that common practice in such cases is an article-space block until they respond, and acknowledge that communication is required. This is probably a better long-term solution than draftification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article space. @HistoryOfOceania, please participate in this thread, thank you. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryOfOceania after a brand new editor left an unblock request... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

And I've also just now cu-blocked HistoryOnEarth. Bizarre behaviour. Meanwhile, it's possible they may be The Southern Hemisphere. I haven't investigated the behaviour, but c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/The Southern Hemisphere is there as a thread to pull on if anyone is interested. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

OWN and NPA from Storye book

On the article John Turner (miser), the editor Storye book has edit warred and made personal attacks to preserve language that is contradictory to Wikipedia's policies and MOS for describing subjects in Wikivoice as part of OWN behavior. Since the beginning of the year, Storye book has reverted six separate editors making the relevant corrections six times: 4 February, 30 March, 28 May, 14 June, 26 June, and 27 June. They have made baseless accusations that other editors don't understand British English (edit summary), were lying (edit summary), described good-faith changes as unthinking editing (edit summary), and accused editors of not reading citations (diff). They also also misused generic rollback to edit war (diff). When warned that their behavior was unacceptable, they responded with a text wall that repeated some of the same comments, as well as adding an "under construction" template to dissuade any other editors from contributing to the article as they restore their preferred verbiage.

Their ownership behavior has been present on that article for a while, with Storye book in 2024 refusing bot access to the page to maintain my access to subscription sources (edit summary) and insisting that any removal of a non-MOS piece of content had to be discussed with them first (edit summary). Similar behavior can be found in a 2023 ANI they filed accusing another editor of hounding because they dared to collaborate on an article. I am seeking for Storye book to be blocked from John Turner (miser) for a period and for them to be reminded that collaboration is a mandatory element of Wikipedia. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that all or some of the above is untrue, or misrepresented. I refer to to my answers to these accusations, on the talk page of the article, and on my talk page. Following the above accusations, which have appeared already on those pages, I have attempted to explain the reasons for my edits, and when those were ignored and called "a text wall", I am currently attempting to resolve the situation by rewriting part of the article to fit WP requirements so as to avoid further responses like the one you see above.
• My attempt is taking the form of a construction template and my further editing to improve the article. The template asks readers to help to edit, so I don't know what the above complaint is all about.
• My edit summaries do not directly insult or accuse any editors. I carefully phrased them to avoid that. The notability of the article is the extremely eccentric character of the subject and the historical response to that, not his profession. That is why I was adjusting the header to reflect the character. The edits which I reverted were changing his character from an eccentric to a normal one. That was not appropriate. If one or more of those editors could have discussed the situation on the talk page, I might have been able to explain the issue to them, and we could have come to some agreement or compromise as necessary.
• There were no baseless accusations of misunderstanding British English. I explained what "well-to-do" meant, after being surprised that that polite understatement of Turner's riches was causing offence.
• I was careful not to say that any individual was lying. If you read that edit summary, you will see that I was explaining what could happen if facts were changed without recourse to the citations.
• I don't believe that there was ever any unthinking editing, and have not used that expression before. It is not in my phraseology. I do believe that some editors may have misunderstood elements of the article, which is why I made explanations in the edit summaries, and on the article talk page.
• I understand edit warring to mean multiple deletion changes between two editors (or more than two acting as one concurrent group). I have only reverted one edit by the above complainant. He, on the other hand, reverted two of my edits within 24 hours and 8 minutes.
• The complainant did not simply warn me of unacceptability. His opening paragraph on my talk page had a bullying tone, and I felt as if I were being shouted at. But if you read my attempts at explanation to him on the article talk page and on my talk page, you will see that I was quietly attempting to explain the situation to him and to calm him down by doing so. When he appeared to either ignore what I said or not understand it (I'm not sure which) I tried again to explain, and any normal person would do, but he just called it "rhetoric" and "text wall". I do not know why he did not respond by entering into the discussion about how to improve the article on the basis of an understanding of it.
• Under Construction templates are not there to prevent others from editing. They are only there to encourage others to help with the construction (as the template's text says) and to inform them that sometimes long edits may be made. Personally, when I am making a long and complex edit, I use the "In Use" template. I have not used that template on that article so far.
• The reason for using No Bot Access templates on articles in my case, is to prevent bots from messing up the links to subscription sites when used as citations. What was happening in 2024 was that someone was using a bot which was rewriting my citations such that I could not read those citations in order to continue my research and check my work. In particular it was removing page and column numbers (which makes it impossible for me to locate relevant text on old British newspapers (which really are a wall of text!), and sometimes the bot was just taking me to the paywall of the site, and my link to the actual newspaper text was lost. The person running the bot advised me to put up the No Bots template so that they could run their bot elsewhere without worrying about my British Newspaper Archive citations getting messed up. I think that issue may be resolved by now, and recently I have not used the No Bots template on articles. .I never felt comfortable about using it, anyway. I should add that the urls in those citations could be used by anyone with a BNA subscription, anyone who has recently obtained a British Library Readers Card, and anyone in the UK whose local library, university or other institution has a subscription to the BNA. The same facility applies to my other subscription urls. So the No Bot templates were certainly not about private urls or other selfishness.
• An edit summary requesting discussion on the article talk page is a normal event here. It is one of the tactics that we use to help prevent edit warring. If we can discuss, we can inform people fully, and come to an understanding, compromise, or agreement about improving the article. What's not to like? It's certainly not about demanding that editors ask permission. That would not make sense.
• "Verbiage", as used above is offensive.
• The 2023 ANI that I filed gave my opinion, for which I have a right. I explained the situation as best I could, and when the conversation ended I left it at that, because there was no more that I could do. My complaint was not about the fact of collaboration, as you will see when you read that ANI. It was about hounding. No doubt we have all started at least one discussion on WP, that we did not "win". We don't all have to win all of the time. That's life. Am I being criticised here for breaking some rule when starting that ANI? I believed that I was being hounded, but others disagreed. End of.
• Demanding that I be blocked for objecting to collaboration does not make sense. I have no objection to collaboration, and as I said above, I am currently trying to rewrite the John Turner article to fit WP requirements, and I have already made a start.
• There is one thing that now worries me, though. I do feel as if I have been stalked. The complainant has gone through my WP history of 20 years with a fine toothcomb, just looking for trouble. Yet during that time, just like many other editors, I have dedicated myself to years of research and hard work to provide articles for WP, and have been proud to have the opportunity to do so. I have ungrudgingly paid out a great deal of money on expenses for that work, including nearly £300 per year on subscription to research sites, and a great deal more over the years on travel costs, book costs and so on. I have few if any holidays, I have no car, I do not drink, buy lots of clothes or have parties. WP is my dedication and my pleasure, and I expect no appreciation of any kind, just like all the other editors here. I have done my best and I'm doing my best now. I don't know how much longer I'll be here: to do with my heart, apparently (I try not to think about it). Every now and then there are attacks like the above, which do not make sense. We try to adjust to please, but we all have to continue to learn all of the time. Please note that what I have written is not a "wall of text", "verbiage" or "rhetoric". It is an explanation, written in good faith. Please take it in good faith. My eyes are now fogging over after trying to write for so long. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no way I could possibly expect any editor or admin to read Storye book's 7,596-character, 1,362-word reply above. TL;DR: Storye book falsely claims to only have made one reversion of the same content (check my diffs above), falsely accuses me of having gone through my WP history of 20 years with a fine toothcomb (I checked the article's history and if they had ever been reported for similar behavior at ANI), and believes that their sacrifices for Wikipedia are uniquely substantial as to merit exemption from Wikipedia's policies (they are not unique, and they do no such thing). Most tellingly, they believe edit summaries like More unthinking editing going on (diff) were carefully phrased them to avoid personal attacks. This editor is experienced enough that six nearly identical reverts, repeated personal attacks, and excuse-making for repeated behavior should result in direct action. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No.

• You made many accusations in your opening post above. That meant I had to answer each one, and explain it, since there are obviously misunderstandings. Are you encouraging people not to read my explanations? You have now made another list of accusations, which presumably I am expected to answer.
• I didn't say I made one reversion of the same content. I said I made one reversion of an edit by you, in the context of a definition of putative edit wars between you and me only.
• I didn't say you had gone through etc. I said I felt stalked, and as if you had gone through etc. That is different.
• I did not ask for exemption on the grounds of good past work, and I certainly did not say I was unique in doing good work. In fact I said I behaved just like other dedicated editors. Read my words again.
• What counts in edit summaries is intention. I certainly did not intend personal attacks. If it looks like that, then there is a misunderstanding there and I apologise to those editors for lack of clarity and for any offence unintentionally caused. My intention was to make the situation clear where there is little space for explanation. I should have written a one-word edit summary, then perhaps contacted the individual editors in the hope of a positive discussion. If that kind of situation happens again, I shall not make the same mistake. In my explanations on the article talk page I was careful not to mention editor names.
• What worries me here is that you appear to be looking for retribution, whereas I am looking for ways to improve the article without causing offence. I still do not know what is wrong with the expression, "well-to-do". Does it mean something offensive in the US? Storye book (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You say here I didn't say you had gone through etc. I said I felt stalked, and as if you had gone through etc.. In this diff, you say I do feel as if I have been stalked. The complainant has gone through my WP history of 20 years with a fine toothcomb, just looking for trouble. That second sentence has no "as if" in it. Please remember to re-read your own posts before making incorrect claims about them. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Please note that what I have written is not a "wall of text", "verbiage" or "rhetoric"

That's not up to you to decide, it's up to the volunteers who have to read it. And yes, that is exactly what they are going to call it. You seem to have a habit of writing excessively long replies. This irritates other editors and discourages from engaging in arguments with you, which is in and of itself disruptive. I guarantee you you could have made all of your important points in fewer than 20% of the words you used here. Amatmilen (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you genuinely don't get the point we're trying to make, I read just a small part of your reply, quoted below, to help you understand. I will not read all of it.

I don't believe that there was ever any unthinking editing, and have not used that expression before. It is not in my phraseology. I do believe that some editors may have misunderstood elements of the article, which is why I made explanations in the edit summaries, and on the article talk page.

The only salient point made in this text is, paraphrased, "I did not use the expression 'unthinking editing'." 8 words vs. 52. 84% of this text is unnecessary.

This statement is also untrue. You did use that expression. The evidence is in the diff in the OP. So not only is this text needlessly verbose, but the only statement of substance you made in it is false. What confidence do you think this gives to other editors that reading the rest of your post is worth their time? Amatmilen (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

A few thoughts.

• The accusations of not understanding British English appear to be backed up by the diff. In undoing someone's change, Storye book wrote, Do not change British English because you do not understand it. It's hard to interpret that as any way other than saying "you don't understand British English."
• The accusations of lying do NOT appear to be backed up by the specified diff, but IS by a different one. Leaving that [wording] out would be lying. seems to say, "We don't want to lie, which is why we must include this wording. I can see how Pbritti would come to their conclusion, but I don't see this as a personal attack. However, this other diff begins with, Editors, please stop inserting lies into the article. which unambiguously calls the unspecified editors liars.
• Storye book's responses above both very much qualify as WP:WALLOFTEXT. I was unable to get through them in their entirety, and encourage Storye book to trim it down to 500 words, tops, or if that's too difficult, break it up into separate posts by subject for ease of reading and reply.
• Storye book's claim that I don't believe that there was ever any unthinking editing, and have not used that expression before. is demonstrably false, as the OP's diff shows it clearly in the edit summary.
• The above could be consistent with Storye book has not actually examining OP's evidence. I suggest they do so. Their response should address the evidence presented, not merely their recollection.
• It does seem like Storye book has been trying to collaborate, though the effectiveness of that seems limited. I hope this is due to a lack of effort; if Storye book HAS been making an effort, that suggests it is an inability to collaborate effectively which is to blame, which is much harder for Storye book to fix.

If no readable response is forthcoming, OP's requested remedy of a p-block from the article and an admonition to collaborate seems warranted. Apologies for my 345 word response. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Having actually read Storye book's excessively long responses, as well as Pbritti's, I'm convinced that Pbritti is correct: Storye book is displaying ownership behaviour on this article. Their edit summary Please do not remove content without discussing on talk page is evidence of this behaviour. The WP:BRD process is not designed as a cover for article ownership; page creators must understand this is a collaborative project and that other perspectives are permitted. Instead, Storye book has most substantive edits going back to 2023 and every single substantive edit this year. A p-block is appropriate as a remedy to the ownership and to prevent the disruption from Storye book's behaviour thus far.

Separately, John Turner (miser) includes extensive amounts of original research. There are five citations to English census data and one to Turner's probate filings, which are all primary sources. The explanatory notes include material that is unsourced or sourced solely to primary sources. And the bulk of the article is based on a single piece in the Bradford Observer (although citations are unhelpfully split between its reprinting in two separate newspapers, the Knaresborough Post and the Pateley Bridge and Nidderdale Herald) that was written by an unnamed person who clearly disliked Turner and seemed determined to make Turner's life into a didactic lesson against miserliness. The rest of the newspaper sources are brief mentions. Thus, this entire article hangs on primary sources, trivial mentions, and a single source of WP:SIGCOV that is of questionable reliability. I am not sure Turner even meets our notability standards, and I would question whether Storye book should remain autopatrolled if this article is representative of their work.

I am more agnostic on the charges of personal attacks and incivility, although if Storye book thinks Pbritti's the use of the word "verbiage" is offensive their sense of amour propre needs to be recalibrated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have already said that I shall not be deleting/reverting edits on the John Turner article any more.
• I have already said that I am currently working on improving the article. This will take some time. I can explain why if required.
• Why has no-one yet explained to me why the words "excessively" and "well-to-do" were removed from the article on the grounds of being superfluous? The phrase "excessively hard work" means "work which was too hard". "Well-to-do", a relative term, means "being financially successful". This question is fundamental to the initial cause of this discussion. Storye book (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  • You have also said things that are demonstrably untrue, as discussed above.
  • You have not addressed the behavioral issues raised.
  • The third bullet point is a content dispute, which ANI does not deal with. It's happened many times that someone was right on the merits of the content dispute, but wrong in their behavior, so the root cause of this discussion matters far less than the conduct raised. Because it seems important to you, personally, I'll try to answer anyway: if I had to guess, they'd object that those terms run afoul of WP:IMPARTIAL; those terms are relative, and tend to be value laden. If the detail is important, an RS would say so. If no RS says it, it's not within Wikipedia's scope, which is only to summarize what RS say. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Storye book has tripled-down on ownership-type behavior on the newly opened AfD for the article. After a comment that asks editors to ignore CRYSTAL and addresses no concerns with the notability issues raised in the AfD, Storye book indicated they would republish the article after it was deleted. They've already taken steps towards a premeditated circumvention of consensus: they created a draft in their userspace to preserve the article. To paraphrase Dclemens1971 from their comment in that AfD, that behavior is very odd on an article that's been in the mainspace for more than three years. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at Pbritti, but I don't think that's a fair characterization. The first diff is saying they believe WP:RS will exist. It is not speculating on the future of Turner, just stating that they have reason to believe sources will exist soon. I'd still discount the argument at AfD, but I don't think it's one that's against policy to make.

The second quote does not read like a stated intention to circumvent consensus. Instead it reads as a note that if the community doesn't think the article is ready for publication now, to put it back in userspace so she can work on it and make it suitable for publication. This is admirable, and what we'd want users to do. I share your concern that their notion of "suitable" may differ, but it would be reasonable to interpret their comment as an intent to improve, not to immediately put it back in mainspace, and that perhaps they can tell which way the wind is blowing and are figuring out how to bend with it.

Put another way: when an article is found to be unsuitable, what's better for the encyclopedia: for an editor to ragequit, or to work on improving the article in draftspace until it's ready for publication? EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

While reading things in the most generous light is a kind thing, I think EducatedRedneck is offering too much credit to Storye book. This editor had no problem accusing other editors of lying, only to make multiple false statements here. I don't see any indication in their above replies or their comments elsewhere that they're taking any of this criticism of their behavior seriously. The unilateral userfication and unsupported assurances that local news articles (not NPERSON RSs) will maybe exist in the future are just the latest instances of them hoping to find a procedural route around having to work with other editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify:

* I have already stopped reverting anything on the John Turner article, and have no intention of repeating that kind of change without discussion.

* If anyone thinks I was accusing them personally of lying, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. My belief that changes made on the article contradicted the citations should have been expressed more appropriately. The issue was language, not intention to hurt. I have no intention of using the word "lying" in that kind of context again.

* I userfied a copy of the article temporarily in order to convert it to a pdf (which procedure wasn't working for me in mainspace) so that I could download it. I wanted to download a copy of it because it is now under discussion for deletion (Afd). I understand that I have a legal right to download a copy of WP articles, for my records. If my userfication of a copy of the article upsets anyone (why?) I can easily delete it, as I don't need it there right now. Being in the process of improving the article and using an Under Construction tag which invites editor cooperation is in no way "a procedural route around having to work with other editors". I would love to work with other editors on the article. Sadly, as I write, I have not yet seen any other editor adding useful facts with citations. I look forward to doing so.

* To avoid any further misunderstandings and the continuation of argument, I suggest a more direct route, more constructive and beneficial to WP than simply seeking retribution. I suggest that the complainant writes on this page a paragraph intended for me to sign. It should list all the legal and moral things that the complainant wants me to do and not do. After other editors have judged it fair and reasonable, I shall not judge it myself, but shall sign it forthwith, and keep to its demands. I do not wish to interfere with that process, so I shall keep away. Please ping me when you are ready for me to sign. Storye book (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Re: reverts on Turner article: You assure that you won't revert anything, but the issue is that in this very thread you have made several statements which contradict reality, and have not acknowledged this. This severely erodes community trust that you will continue to do what you say. "I accept that I made errors in misremembering and/or misquoting my comments above.and/or elsewhere. Storye book (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Re: apology: This is a good start, but comes close to an ifpology. The second sentence helps, but it'd be even better if you acknowledged that you words WERE taken as accusations of lying. * I acknowledge that my words WERE taken as accusations of lying. Storye book (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• I concur with this point re: userspace draft. If you really have finished using the userspace draft, I'd suggest requesting a deletion as a show of good faith. * Having previously tried and failed to delete its history, I have requested deletion by an admin, who is usually prompt and reliable. Storye book (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Re: Direct route: This may be the wrong way forward. You're asking the community to invest a significant amount of time in crafting a tailored editing restriction for you when you should be able to follow the policies as-written on your own. It's putting the burden of your behavior on the community instead of yourself. I'd suggest something simpler like a WP:1RR. That lets others edit at will, and you can use the talk pages. Just be aware that if you write walls of text, you may be ignored; that's not an injustice, just the way the world works. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC) * I shall no longer write walls of text on here. I shall no longer do anything on the article which may be perceived as edit warring. Have I missed anything? Storye book (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I am, but my understanding is that it's incumbent upon the filer to demonstrate their claims. Until then, the community is supposed to default to the null hypothesis of "no problem exists." I do agree that they haven't onboarded the feedback they've been given. That's bad. But that doesn't mean their userification (which rule prohibits editors from making a copy of an article in their userspace?) is done with malicious intent. I'd direct you to Hanlon's Razor. Storye book may be bad at editing within policy, but that doesn't require that they're a bad actor. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have replied in short, in bold, above. Forgive me for using bold, which is not intended as impoliteness; I do not know how else to differentiate my own replies properly. Please edit the bold to a better form or tell me what to do if necessary. Please tell me what I have missed out. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Generally you're not supposed to WP:INTERLEAVE your responses with another editors'. I do think the steps you've outlined are good ones to take. I hope this will resolve the matter; if you stay away from that article, it seems to me like the problem will be resolved. At the very least, it'll only help the argument that you've recognized that your behavior didn't mesh well with the community and have attempted to avoid repeating it, which is a large point in your favor. Just know that if you DO go back to that article despite your commitments, it'll be difficult to argue that you shouldn't be blocked from it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this article has been "stabilized" (Storye book is prepared to back away, and the AfD can resolve OR and notability concerns), but I did a little looking to see if there was a larger pattern here. Storye book, you appear to be a longstanding and prolific editor on local history topics, which can be incredibly valuable to the encyclopedia, but I want to gently remind you that here we are an encyclopedia and not a historical society. Based on what I have seen on other articles, I am going to give you two pieces of advice:

1. Be very cautious in your use of primary sources. Specifically, assume that our articles will contain errors because secondary sources inevitably make mistakes regarding details that primary sources can clarify: Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth, where we follow secondary sources. You can remove information from our articles if you think a claim from secondary source is too misleading to include, but avoid 'correcting' secondary sources' errors using primary sources, as that is WP:OR. If the secondary sources have a lot of errors, you might see if a local newspaper or a publication like Notes & Queries would be willing to publish your work and thus turn it into secondary sourcing.
2. When reverting, always state a context-specific rationale for your undo, rather than simply telling the other editor to "discuss". For example, in this revert, a more appropriate edit summary would have been "Restoring years that are useful context and supported by the sources." The cycle is "Bold, Revert, Discuss", not "Discuss, Storye Book Approves, Edit".

I think keeping these things in mind will help your extensive research build a high-quality encyclopedia in collegial collaboration with others, which is what we all want. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Continuous undiscussed changes to Primeiro Comando da Capital by temporary accounts

• Primeiro Comando da Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The mentioned article has been constantly edited by various temporary accounts which keep changing the group's definition from "Criminal Organization" and "Drug Gang" to "mafia" without discussion or even an edit summary, i told them several times to discuss on the talk page about it, and explained the definition of these groups under Brazilian law (which doesn't classify these groups as mafias), yet the user (which likely is just the same person under different temp. accounts) keeps manually reverting back to his version, its likely that they will just continue the same behaviour as they have re-added that content at least 5 or 6 times already. MySalsa22 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t see any talk page messages by you. I do see a vigorous edit war zooming past the bright line WP:3RR trigger for almost automatic blocking. Remember, being right is not enough. Both you and the TA are blocked from the article for 24 hours. During that time, please start discussing the issue with the TA. If they don’t engage and resume their editing, then we have a problem with them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, i did try to reach them by the edit summaries but maybe they just did not read them, ill try to reach throught the talk page and see if they do respond. MySalsa22 (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I left them a message on their talk page just now, lets see if and how they will respond, just hoping they will actually see it. MySalsa22 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI Edit summaries are for describing your edits for the record, they're not meant for communication between editors.

It's usually best to discuss on the article Talk page rather than User Talk pages so others can see and participate, see WP:BRD. You can ping to alert them to the discussion. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh alright, i sent them a message on their talk page because i thought i couldnt edit the article's talk, im going to make an discussion there now, thanks. MySalsa22 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you should still be able to access the Talk page, but this was more so you know what to do if you encounter a similar situation in future! Make sure to look through the pages I've linked, as well as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in case you encounter problems and aren't sure what to do next. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, no problem, i have made the discussion there and presented my opinions as to how it should be named, hopefully other editors also join in so we can get a consensus on how it should be called. Thanks for the information by the way!

MySalsa22 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad to help! Hopefully things can be resolved calmly when the block expires. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 22:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet @Rsjaffe they are at it again, they just edited the lead to change it to "mafia", just as last time. MySalsa22 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I blocked them from Primeiro Comando da Capital indefinitely. Blocked the IP also from the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If they want to pursue their position, they can request an edit on the article talk page and include a justification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe see below, looks like the wrong article was blocked, can you please check quickly? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed that. The IP was also blocked, but looks like that was correct. That’s what I get for trying to use Twinkle on a phone. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah yep, I use the mobile version because my phone does not like the standard! Still finicky, but better than nothing. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you blocked them on the wrong article lol. MySalsa22 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also i would like to add that, if you look at the article history, its most likely the same person under various different TAs (at least 3 different accounts), as i mentioned before, i dont know if this constitutes sockpuppetry or not, although i think its pretty possible they may try to return under other accounts/TAs (they seem to not take warnings seriously or even check their talk page, which may lead them to just ignore this and try to circumvent the block later somehow)

Anyways, thanks for taking action, hopefully they will at least reconsider and try to discuss this change on the talk page now.

MySalsa22 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The three most recent TA's are the same IP, but those can change with device, settings or just time itself. If they switch TA's to try to evade scrutiny, that's definitely socking. It's often a grey area with TA's, unfortunately. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:13, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense, thanks for clarifying though, hopefully they will just either refrain from trying to change it again or will at least try to discuss before making further changes. MySalsa22 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If they reappear to edit the page directly (and therefore evade their block) as a different TA, you can report the new account to AIV since that's usually quickest. Just make sure to include a link to the old TA & one or two lines/diffs to explain, since those reports usually need to be worked pretty quickly. If it's not so clear, use this thread if it's open or open an WP:SPI report. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I blocked the ip underlying those TAs because I saw the TAs changing over time, whether intentionally or not. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Powerful Style Allah

• Powerful Style Allah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the contributions of Powerful Style Allah (talk · contribs). Vandalism-only edits, inserting their POV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

So far they have only edited articles on Islamic terrorism and have been very specific in pointing out that the perpetrators were Muslim. Every single one of their edits has been reverted as of writing. GarethBaloney (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism as defined by Wikipedia, I will also note that they haven't been warned before now, and stopped editing a few minutes after the ANI notice was added to their Talk page.

It's possible that we've got someone who's here to right great wrongs, or it could be someone with strong views who doesn't know what's appropriate - it's hard to tell because nobody has tried to talk to them yet. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

None of my edits constitute vandalism. Every single one of my edits display exactly what the sources say and I line-quote sources that have already been referenced in all the articles I've edited.

What you're doing is disruptive editing by pov-pushing your way into trying to remove the "Islamic terrorist" motives of all the Muslim perpetrators who've committed those attacks. I don't think I need to point out *why* you're doing it, everyone on here can tell.

But I've reverted all of your attempts of trying to remove my edits without any cause.

In case you didn't know- the race and religion of perpetrator of terrorist attack - is always mentioned when it's crucial to the motive and reasoning of the attack. Which is the case in all the articles I've mentioned.

No you cannot have it your way where "injured by an assailant wielding a knife" was the description of the Somalian Muslim perpetarator of the 2017 Brussels stabbing attack, who stabbed two soldiers, which you tried reverting back to just now .

No the lead description of the assailant will not leave out the ethnicity and religion of the refugee who shouted "allahu akbar" while mowing down kuffar and pledged allegiance to ISIS after.

Vague, non-descriptive mention of the assailant constitute as pov.

I don't care in the slightest that you don't like it. It's not vandalism. Powerful Style Allah (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe we now have an answer to Blue-Sonnet's question, and it seems we're probably looking at a RGW situation. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but it may well be a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

You've not considered the weight and individual circumstances of each article, you've laser-focused on any article with a Muslim-perpetrator in order to emphasise their religion and, at times, ethnicity, above anything else. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you believe your edits are good, then the proper thing once they're reverted is to open up a discussion on the article's talk page in order to build a consensus that your version is better. Putting them back in is edit-war behavior, and the community's supply of patience with edit warring in contentious areas is quite meager. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

There's also a one-revert restriction since these are contentious topics. I've reverted back because I don't think the changes are appropriate, but am happy to discuss if Powerful Style Allah (or another editor) can provide some policy-based arguments for reinstating them on the relevant Article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Powerful Style Allah Just stop this style of editting or face a sanction. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors all seem to agree this needs to stop User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears that they're making caste-related edits (now reverted) - I'll be adding a CTOP notice to their page shortly In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've also noticed that this was removed as original research when the inclusion of Bangladesh is sourced on the Meitei people page.

I've asked for an explanation on the article Talk page. Since I'm not overly familiar with the subject, I'd very much appreciate the support of any editors who know more about the subject than I do. @Pbritti I hope it's ok to ping you as the most experienced editor who's participated in this discussion? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Apologies, I've just realised this edit would also fall under the EC restriction. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that we're looking at yet another sock of Prince of Roblox. This time PoR appears to have decided to go beyond his usual area of disruption and hence escaped the radar for a week. Someone needs to report it to sockpuppet investigation. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

They reinstated the caste edit after I warned them . In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Enakpat18: sealioning about AI usage

Enakpat18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another person using AI; one of their edits contains a Grok UTM parameter. That, in addition to several other indicators -- a small sampling: Markdown added here (the [text](url) link format), AI edit summaries here (partial, everything after the --), here (note other AI signs in that edit too, WP:AIVOCAB, promotionality, etc, all in a short space), here, and too many diffs with AI indicators in the prose itself to list here -- makes me suspect that most of their edits after 2023 are likely AI.

However, they refuse to engage constructively or even say, yes or no, whether they used AI, claiming that even just asking the question or tagging an article is assuming bad faith -- when actually it is assuming unwarrantedly good faith, given that their AI usage is basically confirmed as above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It is true that on George Hutchinson's page specifically I had used Grok to find a couple of sources, but that was a long time ago. Simply because a source was found through an AI query doesn't invalidate the source if I verified that it is reliable / not hallucinated. I believe it is not against the rules to use AI to find sources as long as the editor checks the source and doesn't actually copy-paste any text from the LLM into Wikipedia. I think I did make a mistake in that one instance, but I did note in the reference that it came from Grok, and I read into the rules afterwards, and it's not something I'd do again.

In violation of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, you are accusing me of copy-pasting LLM-generated prose into several articles, something I never did.

I never copy-pasted anything from an LLM and published it on Wikipedia. I did my own copy-editing. When you claim there are markdown issues, I don't understand if you are talking about the [a] [b] [c] superscripts. Those are quotations by the person that support the claims in the article. Please refer to the Notes sections. These are not indications of LLM-generated prose. Enakpat18 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The markdown issues refers to the text you added url=[https://romantic-circles.org/praxis/mccall](https://romantic-circles.org/praxis/mccall) which is in the markdown format for URLs and not the way wikitext handles them. Can you tell us how URLs in that format come to be added to the page? Morwen (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

It was a careless formatting oversight on my part, not an automated or direct copy-paste from an LLM output. I wrote my draft notes/sources in personal Markdown environment, and when transferring the citation details into the article, I pasted my internal syntax instead of converting it to standard wikitext templates.

I appreciate you pointing out the specific formatting error, and I will make sure to strictly use standard wikitext syntax moving forward. Enakpat18 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you using AI or LLM to write your posts here? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, I am aware of the rules and do not copy-paste text from an LLM into Wikipedia. Enakpat18 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM in anyway to assist with this comment? It’s okay if you did, it’s just that it does seem like it’s LLM influenced text. If that’s your natural writing voice, my apologies. Dw31415 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

They've just replied above. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw that reply and do not copy-paste sounded like a narrow denial. Dw31415 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, LLM can be used on Wikipedia for research purposes, basic copy-editing like punctuation and spelling, and brainstorming. I did use LLM for these purposes. It can also be used for translation.

It cannot be used to generate text or rewrite existing text. It also cannot be used as a source in itself (the sources need to be manually verified even if they are paraphrased in the editor's own words).

I did not use LLM to generate text or rewrite any existing text. I did not take an LLM output and copy-paste it into the article and publish it.

When you say narrow denial, you are making it sound like LLM use is completely forbidden. My understanding is that it's permitted according to certain rules. I do not believe I broke the rules. Enakpat18 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

He has identified his upbringing in Indianapolis as a primary influence on his later scholarship, crediting his mother with fostering an interest in both contemporary 'new ideas' and established cultural traditions. Additionally, he has cited his maternal grandfather—a geologist—as a key source for his 'questioning approach' to historical interpretations. is not a quotation. (And for that matter, if it was, you would be plagiarizing it.) It's textbook AI writing. And this is one sentence's worth of what you have added. WP:DUCK applies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That was already changed to be more concise and less essayistic. It may have been heavily based on an article from encyclopedia.com or another source (which is referenced) but I did already edit that to fix the tone and verbosity issues you are pointing out a long time ago. Enakpat18 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not pointing out tone and verbosity issues, I am pointing out the fact that it is a textbook example of AI-generated prose, which is not allowed per WP:NOLLM. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

This sentence may have been lifted with minor edits from another source (while citing the source), but I already fixed that a long time ago by rewriting it manually. Also, I admit that in the past I may not have been fully aware of the rules regarding LLM usage on Wikipedia, though I do not believe I ever copy-pasted LLM prose into Wikipedia and published it. This particular sentence was rewritten quite a while (six months or so) ago. This sentence is a moot point.

I have used LLM to find sources in the past, but I never copy-pasted any LLM generated prose and published it on Wikipedia. I may have used LLM in some cases for research purposes when drafting articles (e.g., to improve my understanding of certain concepts) but I believe this is allowed per Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models as long as the content in the article itself was not generated using an LLM and the editor verified each of the claims generated by the LLM by checking all the sources (which I did). Enakpat18 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

We need you to understand that it is not merely the act of copying-and-pasting which would be the problem, but e.g. retyping it by hand would also be prohibited. Morwen (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If the article itself was not generated using an LLM, then how would you "verify each of the claims generated by the LLM?" If the former is accurate, then the latter doesn't exist. No claims should "generated by the LLM" as an LLM may only be used for basic copy edits and translating foreign language text in strict accordance with WP:LLMT CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No I did not manually rewrite an LLM output. I am not being sneaky when I say "copy-paste." Please see my reply above (copy-pasted again here):

LLM can be used on Wikipedia for research purposes, basic copy-editing like punctuation and spelling, and brainstorming. I did use LLM for these purposes. It can also be used for translation.

It cannot be used to generate text or rewrite existing text. It also cannot be used as a source in itself (the sources need to be manually verified even if they are paraphrased in the editor's own words).

I did not use LLM to generate text or rewrite any existing text. I did not take an LLM output and copy-paste it (or manually rewrite it) into the article and publish it.

When you say narrow denial, you are making it sound like LLM use is completely forbidden. My understanding is that it's permitted according to certain rules. I do not believe I broke the rules. Enakpat18 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not say "narrow denial" at any point, and I certainly didn't make it sound like LLM use is completely forbidden. In fact, I specifically outlined the two specific ways that it was not forbidden.

I see that you've added "brainstorming" to this list now.

I am not certain you're using LLMs for a proscribed purpose, but I think it's highly likely. I think the minimum needed, at least in my opinion, is for you to pledge to not use LLMs in any way, be in researching, "brainstorm," or copy-editing. And that includes copy-editing tools like Grammarly that now use AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well no, Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models allows basic copy-editing, translation and that's it. The extra tasks you've stated (brainstorming & finding sources) are not permitted. We've found that AI does tend to misunderstand the policy and say those things are permitted, however. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok I may have misunderstood the rules and do pledge not to use it moving forward. I do apologize for my misunderstanding. I now know that it is only permitted for basic copyediting (grammar and spelling) and translation. Enakpat18 (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Enakpat18 Please see WP:YESLLM. It is likely that the guideline is far more restrictive, even of "basic copyediting and translation," than you think it is. Athanelar (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Doesn’t that essay directly contradict the guideline with respect to basic copy editing? Dw31415 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

No. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Athanelar (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I opened a separate discussion for that at Wikipedia talk:Yes, that does violate the AI guidelines#Copy editing Dw31415 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Source-to-text integrity spot checks:

• Special:Diff/1346483129: Professor Stef Craps (Ghent University) noted in 2013 that Caruth's theory's grounding in Western literary and psychoanalytic traditions may carry assumptions of broader applicability that do not always fully reflect the distinctive experiences of trauma in non-Western or culturally specific contexts. The source only mentions Caruth once, in passing, and says nothing else specific about her. The text also extrapolates a lot of AI editorializing from a quotation that does not really support it.
• Special:Diff/1347249763: Professor Michael Wood (Princeton University) critiqued Levine's Forms for what he saw as a passive and overly cautious approach to politics. He argued that Levine often relies on vague language—using words like "might" or "hope"—rather than offering strategies for change. Wood suggested that her theory depended too much on "lucky accidents" where different forms happen to collide and disrupt power, rather than on people actively directing that change. - The source does not contain the phrase "lucky accidents" or mention her using the word "hope", and the "might" is characterized as "forlorn", not vague.
• Also Special:Diff/1347249763: For Leonardo Nolé, Ph.D., this approach relies on oversimplification and inadequately explains how artistic patterns may lead to real-world results. Cited to a URL that does not exist. The archive.org version of that URL is also a 404. No Google results for the URL.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and also in that last diff there is a reference to which actually is a completely different article than the one cited - it says its a review of "Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network" reviewed by Sheila Liming but actually it's a paper called "Girl Talk and Hold Music: On the Sculptural Poetics of" by Amalle Dublon. The actual URL should be this, which is not a plausible typo. Morwen (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok thank you for pointing these things out.

Prior to this conversation, I thought it was OK to use LLM for research and brainstorming purposes such as finding sources as long as the editor did not copy-paste or rewrite any LLM generated prose into Wikipedia and checked that the sources were not hallucinated.

I may have been reading LLM-generated summaries of sources and paraphrased certain points in my own words, though I did not copy and paste text or manually rewrite text from the LLM and publish it on wikipedia.

I know now that I did misunderstand the rules and apologize.

The Michael Wood critique is clearly an instance where I must have been reading a LLM-generated summary though I did not actually copy-paste text from the LLM directly.

I understand the rules are stricter than I had previously thought.

Regarding the Craps critique, it seems I referenced the wrong source. I don't think this wasn AI-related issue.

For the Leonardo Nole critique, I do believe the URL worked when I initially referenced it, though the URL may have died since then.

The Sheila Liming URL issue was an honest mistake where I copy-pasted the wrong source due to a clipboard issue I did not notice. Enakpat18 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick comparison of Cathy Caruth against WP:AISIGNS for consideration:

• WP:RO3
  • she focuses on the languages of trauma and testimony, on theory, and on contemporary discourses
  • Caruth moved beyond the Yale school by exposing convergences between deconstructive ideas, history, and human psychology.
  • Caruth moved beyond the Yale school by exposing convergences between deconstructive ideas, history, and human psychology.
• WP:AIVOCAB
  • Her engagement with these fields is reflected in her contributions to Studies in Romanticism, Romantic Circles, and Philological Quarterly (with RO3 & WP:SUPERFICIAL)
  • Caruth has maintained a research and teaching focus on Romanticism, John Milton, and philology. (with RO3)
  • Caruth's work in Trauma Theory has elicited a spectrum of scholarly critique, with some suggesting that
  • Caruth's model may distance particular events from their immediate historical and political settings by emphasizing... (with WP:SUPERFICIAL)
• WP:AITREND & WP:AIATTR
  • which has been incorporated into curricula across psychoanalysis, history, philosophy, and law.
  • Caruth's work in Trauma Theory has elicited a spectrum of scholarly critique
• WP:AIPARALLEL
  • This putative failure, the collection showed, is constitutive not of a flaw but of a starting point for genuine responsibility toward the past.
  • is not merely a natural emotional story but built on a propped-up framework of language and symbols
  • a process that isn't just a struggle for power between authors but a linguistic repetition

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

These are really, really concerning, along with the ones gnomingstuff linked above. I've found more, but I think more here would be on the verge of bludgeoning. If LLMs weren't generating some of this context, then I think we have an even worse, WP:CIR problem. I'm starting to think that a block from article space, with this editor being allowed to make WP:EDITREQUESTs for a while, is necessary. That can always be lifted later if they demonstrate they can make constructive edits with source-text integrity intact, probably with a strict ban on any LLM use. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok I did make a mistake in thinking it was OK to use LLM for assistance with research as noted above, but per WP:BRICKS, I think you are being too severe by suggesting I be banned from editing.

I already did admit I misunderstood the rules and won't make the same mistake again. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and thought I did understand the rules on AI use, but I admit I misunderstood them.

I don't agree that all of the phrases above are evidence of AI use.

Quite a few of them are my own writing entirely unrelated to my referencing of any LLM-generated summaries.

In the past I may have been using LLM-generated summaries of certain sources for research and brainstorming purposes to confirm my understanding of certain concepts or texts, but I won't do that going forward, and some of these are truly my own writing and not based on anything from an LLM at all. Enakpat18 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming - so your earlier statement that I have used LLM to find sources in the past, but I never copy-pasted any LLM generated prose and published it on Wikipedia wasn't correct?

It's making it hard to trust what you're saying because you keep changing your statement about how much AI you've used whenever further evidence is presented.

We don't mind if you've been using AI without realising it's a problem, admit to it and promise not to use it in future.

We do care if you aren't honest when asked about it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it was correct. I am sorry if it seems like I contradicted that earlier statement. I never took a sentence or phrase that was generated by an LLM and pasted it into Wikipedia. Some sentences were influenced by LLM-generated summaries of sources. I did not know at the time that this wasn't OK.

I admit I broke the rules by asking AI to confirm my understanding of certain sources or for a summary of a source when I was doing research. I did look at some of these summaries while I was writing the article, and they influenced what I wrote. I thought it was OK to base some of my writing on a LLM-generated summary if I reviewed the sources it provided, cited the relevant ones properly, and put the written content in the article in my own words.

However, I would not have been so incompetent or dishonest as to lift something that was entirely generated by an LLM and put it on Wikipedia. I knew even months ago that this would have been a violation of the rules. I never simply copy-pasted from an LLM and just put it on Wikipedia as if it was my own writing. I always did put thought into what I was writing and just was using LLM to confirm that it was accurate. I never let the LLM usurp my own authority and do any writing for me as I knew this would be dishonest.

I now understand that using AI for any purpose other than very basic copyediting such as spellcheck or translation is prohibited, and I will never allow my writing to be influenced by LLM-generated summaries again, and I will never use LLM to find sources again. Enakpat18 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Enakpat18, just so you know, the biggest problem with LLMs at the moment is that they make plausible things up and then stick a plausible reference on it - which is probably what happened with your summaries. So the output sounded like a reasonable summary of a source, but it was at least partly hallucinated. It's okay to ask an LLM to find you sources, but you have to assess and summarise those sources yourself so the LLM can't lie to you (and us). Remember that the LLM is just trying to predict the next word in the sentence (or URL), it doesn't actually know what it's looking at, so its predictions can be horribly wrong. It wants to give you what you've asked for even if what you've asked for doesn't exist, which is very attractive but very unhelpful if you're trying to write something for Wikipedia! Meadowlark (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. To be clear, this was all I was asking about, and this whole back-and-forth could have been avoided if you were just up front about this from the beginning. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Constant aspersion casting and borderline NOTHERE behavior by User:Timestampy

With such abuse on TP I believe they are only here to be a timesink. Borgenland (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Potential mass improper AfC acceptances

I believe that SafariScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) potentially has a COI with Nigerian entertainment related topics and is using their AfC reviewer permissions to improperly accept related drafts. From the table below, you can see that they accept Nigerian entertainment related drafts almost immediately after they're submitted, while their other draft acceptances take much longer. The entertainment drafts also are almost entirely created by single-purpose TAs, while the other drafts are created by a more wide spread variety of editors.

Recently, Vestrian24Bio reported (link) that he was contacted by an ad agency that offered money for him to review certain articles, sprinkled into his legitimate article reviews. I believe something similar has happened here.

Even if there is nothing shady going on, I still do not think that these articles should have been marked reviewed, as they have many verification failures. I've analyzed three below.

A lot of the articles also make heavy use of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and/or seem LLM-generated. InfernoHues (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've revoked NPR based on the above evidence. I'll let SafariScribe respond here before taking further action. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that in the above table "3 m." is 3 months! Didn't immediately realise this and it seemed less clear a pattern than it now appears to be. Morwen (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I just looked at King Kaly and I'm having trouble AGF given that SafariScribe first accepted it to be moved from draft to mainspace as part of AFC, then tagged it for failing verification on a source and then tagged the whole article for notability. @SafariScribe, can you please enlighten us on why you performed those actions in that order?

@Voorts, does revocation of NPP stop someone approving articles at AFC? I thought it wasn't necessary for AFC? Am I incorrect? TarnishedPath^talk 03:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They tagged it for verification because I asked them about their approval process relating to that article on their talk page, that page is how I discovered this pattern. InfernoHues (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I would have thought that if they acknowledged fault with their review, that the correct action would have been to move it back to draft and remove the AFC WikiProject thing from the talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I've come across Safari doing that a few times, whereby they accept a borderline draft, and tag it or even start an AfD on it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. AfC is meant to accept edge cases, in fact if anything we get criticised for sometimes playing it too safe, so in that sense this particular trait is okay in my book.

To answer your earlier question, @TarnishedPath, NPP'ers get automatically the AfC review right, and when the NPP perm goes, so does AfC. But Safari was explicitly accepted into AfC ~2 years ago (and IIRC, got the NPP perm afterwards?), so unless that has been subsequently revoked (perhaps as redundant once the NPP was granted), it's probably still valid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. TarnishedPath^talk 06:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note, NPRs are not included at WP:AFCP because they are automatically included in AFCH access, so if NPP has been revoked in the last few weeks they will likely not be on the list (I've removed NPRs a few times over the last few months). Primefac (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I revoked it yesterday assuming that would pull AFCH access as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

But he also deletes! (if the subject is LGBQT+) ~2026-37401-27 (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Potential AFD Discussion

Resolved. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved from User talk:InfernoHues § Potential AFD Discussion  – InfernoHues (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Hello friend, Trust you are doing fine. I just want to make a few things clear. I would never involve myself in COI, AFD, AFC, or any potential scam or improper editing practices. I recently came across the ANI discussion involving an editor who accepted one of my articles. This is not the first time that an article I created has been accepted by a random editor in less than an hour. That does not mean I have any personal connection with the editor who accepted it. Tagging my article and implying that I know or have a relationship with that editor is unfair and creates a misleading impression. I have no control over which reviewer accepts an AFC submission. As you stated in your edit I am an established editor, and I only create articles that I believe satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. My focus has always been on creating well-sourced articles, and I have no interest in participating in any form of undisclosed coordination or improper conduct. Afro 📢Talk! 14:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC) Hi Afrowriter, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just presenting data relating to SafariScribe's AfC acceptances. InfernoHues (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC) That's fine. I was only trying to clarify things, @InfernoHues and I don't want to be involved in any kind of scandal or unnecessary controversy. There's really no need to move my message here to prolong the discussion, as my intention was simply to clear up any misunderstanding. Afro 📢Talk! 15:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring, content dispute and incivility on film talk pages

~2026-32492-01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I advised ~2026-32492-01 to make an ANI section, but they didn't and continued edit warring. This also involves incivility so am filing it here. ~2026-32492-01 keeps making edit requests, usually asking to update Rotten Tomatoes scores on film articles, and Deacon Vorbis keeps declining them as they feel Wikipedia doesn't need to be updated constantly. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the edit requests and let Deacon know. Since then the pair have begun edit warring each other; Deacon declines edit requests, TA reopens them. Seen on the histories of Talk:Obsession (2025 film) and Talk:Michael (2026 film), among others. I find these closes by Deacon to not be fair, as there is nothing technically wrong with what TA wants. Comments like this and this are unproductive. @HypnoBlader: has also joined in, asking to not make such edit requests (again, nothing wrong with them). Deacon has also sent warnings to TA for personal attacks, despite being WP:INVOLVED. I didn't go to edit warring noticeboard due to the incivility & personal attacks accusations, as well as the fact that I believe Deacon has failed to provide clear reasoning as to why he keeps declining these requests which have nothing wrong with them. I'm more than happy to do them. jolielover♥talk 06:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

(also, TA seems to have a history of edit warring) jolielover♥talk 06:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I should also note that TA believes Deacon should be topic-banned from edit requests, also why I brought this discussion here. jolielover♥talk 06:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I dont think they should be topic banned, but it'd be nice if they changed their tone a bit. I ran into them here, where they in my opinion very weirdly escalated tone when talking to a BLP subject trying to make good faith corrections to the article about them. InfernoHues (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Eh, advising someone to read instructions not to use chatgpt is...kind of mild. There are often upwards of a dozen of these (possibly more, I don't exactly catch them all) malformed LLM output COI requests every day, and it becomes sort of a routine...deny the slop when it's found. It's become an increasingly frequent problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree it's not the biggest deal, but you could have said what they did wrong, instead of just saying "read WP:COI," especially since they presumably did read it (since they declared a COI). I also don't think that particular request was LLM. I know it's a big problem though, and they're one of the main reasons I stopped answering edit requests.

As for the constant budget/rating update requests, I tend to just ignore them if they've been updated recently. I don't really see the point in constantly denying them, it just causes annoyance for no benefit, and someone else might decide to do the update. InfernoHues (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Since this is at least partly about me, I'll say that I find the frequent requests to make minor updates (sometimes within a day) to RT stats kind of disruptive. I've explained this and been met mainly with personal attacks. I've also advised the TA that if they want to make such frequent updates, nothing is stopping them from making an account and doing it themselves. I generally don't begrudge people for not making an account, but when that starts to bleed over into constant minor churn update requests, it starts to be a problem. Plus, talk page watchers can still see the requests and do what they want with them, and I have no particular concern whether they act on them or not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• The TA is continuing WP:HOUNDing behavior toward me, following my edits. I closed one this morning as non-actionable, and they followed that up with one of their own a mere 14 minutes later. This was after I already warned them about this on their talk page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Another instance of hounding from this morning following one of my edit request declines. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I sometimes disagree with your declines, this does look like intentional hounding and is not appropriate. It's just petty. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  this response declining to join us on this page is not encouraging. Morwen (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I tried my best jolielover♥talk 16:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  By "hounding", you mean helping out an editor whose edit request (which was correcting a factual error in the article) was unfairly declined by you because it wasn't formatted in an extremely specific way? You're here to build an encyclopedia, correct? That person was trying to help build the encyclopedia, but you declined their request (and set it to "answered", thereby stopping anyone else who could have helped from seeing it in the edit request list) because it "wasn't clear" what changes they wanted to make (it was). I submitted another edit request on their behalf making it undeniably clear exactly how the article should be changed to fix the factual error. If you read WP:HOUND, you'll see that it says hounding is "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." What work of yours was I inhibiting? I wasn't hounding. I was cleaning up the mess you made (and continuously make) by rushing to decline as many edit requests as you can because they're not perfect ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32492-01 also has a long history of WP:INCIVILITY. For example, , , , and . @~2026-32492-01's old account, @~2026-13653-92 (which he said in his edit summary here ), also has a long line of WP:INCIVILITY too: , , , , , , , , , , , and . As far as I know, @~2026-32492-01 is clearly failing WP:AGF here. HypnoBlader (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

"Long history of incivility" and one of your examples is this edit summary: "Please do not remove over 4000 bytes at one time while introducing/re-introducing factual errors into the article (e.g. adding back that the bonus track edition is US-only, which it isn't; making the number of Metacritic reviews incorrect) Consider making smaller individual edits". That's not only not uncivil, it's outright polite. If you have to grasp at straws like that, you might want to reconsider your position ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, what about the other examples? The examples I provided highlighted that you've been WP:INCIVIL for the past three months. I wasn't the one that got you into this incident, it was your uncivil behavior that got you here. HypnoBlader (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you going to explain why you linked to me being objectively polite as an example of me being uncivil? It heavily implies that you're extremely biased and just looking to dogpile.

I wasn't the one that got you into this incident, it was your uncivil behavior that got you here.

And I wasn't the one that got you here, since you're also being mentioned. You inserted yourself into the situation by making demands about what kinds of edit requests I'm allowed to make ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Still, there's no reason to be WP:INCIVIL all the time. Your attitude to others is unnecessary. All you need to do next time is to be more civil here and stop edit warring. Be civil or you'll be blocked from editing, your choice. If people disagree with your edits, follow WP:BRD where you made a bold edit, someone disagrees with you and has reverted your edit, so the only thing left to do is go to the talk page to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Follow the WP:CIVIL policy and the WP:BRD policy. End of discussion. HypnoBlader (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Still, there's no reason to be WP:INCIVIL all the time.

Dishonest phrasing. I'm not uncivil "all the time", as evidenced by the polite edit summary you accidentally included during your excavation of my edit history in an attempt to dogpile me. When people are actually looking to build an encyclopedia, I get along with them just fine. When they act like you or Deacon Vorbis have acted, I lose my patience. ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Seriously, we're WP:GASLIGHTING now. When they act like you or Deacon Vorbis have acted, I lose my patience, this is a clear example of WP:GAMING. Gaslighting people, such as me and @Deacon Vorbis is WP:CYBER and WP:GAMING. Next time, Read the WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD policies first, then make a civil response. HypnoBlader (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Going a little crazy on the policy spam there. You're proving me more and more correct with every response. Now you're accusing me of "cyberbullying" and "gaslighting" you. You're aware of what gaslighting is, right? The domestic abuse tactic in which the abuser attempts to undermine the victim's confidence in their own psychiatric and/or neurological health? My brother in Christ, you're the bully. You're the who jumped into a situation that didn't involve you, demanding that I don't make valid edit requests any more. ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I was involved because @Jolielover gave me an ANI Notice on my talk page. I'm sorry if I kept spamming the policies. If you wanted me to stop, you could've said so. I'm also sorry if you felt like you were harassed. However, this doesn't mean you can disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, like you did at Talk:Obsession (2025 film) and Talk:Michael (2026 film). Next time if you feel like you're harassed by one editor, you can come here and create a discussion. HypnoBlader (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey man, no hard feelings.

However, this doesn't mean you can disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, like you did at Talk:Obsession (2025 film) and Talk:Michael (2026 film)

In my personal opinion, Deacon Vorbis was very much the one disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified @Deacon Vorbis about the edit requests. HypnoBlader (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Continued hounding of my edits, here. This has gotten beyond ridiculous. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

And so, he is. @The Bushranger, would you please handle this TA. I've tried my best. HypnoBlader (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Not hounding at all, as explained above in the response you ignored ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

At the WP:HOUND policy, or in this case, WP:FOLLOWING. The policy states that, Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.. The policy also states that, Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes.. HypnoBlader (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You might want to read my response from 29 June from earlier in this thread that neither Deacon nor you have acknowledged yet ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and you've forgot to highlight the WP:FOLLOWING policy from my response 12 minutes ago. HypnoBlader (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This is getting a bit WP:WTF again ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If you really don't want to continue this discussion, then WP:DROPTHESTICK, leave @Deacon Vorbis alone, and move on. HypnoBlader (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If you really don't want to continue this discussion

It's moreso that I'm not interested in talking past someone who doesn't address any points I make, spams out-of-context policies, and comes off as extremely emotionally invested despite having inserted yourself into the situation. One moment, you're accusing me of "gaslighting" and "cyberbullying" you and Deacon Vorbis, and typing "sassy" comments such as "Seriously, we're WP:GASLIGHTING now". The next moment, you're going through and fulfilling my edit requests that Deacon Vorbis denied while pinging him and forcefully telling him that I can "do what I want" in regard to edit requests and that his denials weren't properly justified. Then you're back on his side and pinging admins asking them to "handle" me. I'm not even sure you know what your own stance is.

leave Deacon Vorbis alone

I'm very sorry that I helped improve Wikipedia by submitting better-formatted edit requests that I knew wouldn't get dismissed for not being formatted specifically. For example, I've very sorry that Conan Gray's article now has an up-to-date list of awards he has received. Making edit requests on behalf of other editors who don't know how to format their requests in a way that will get attention/be accepted is something I've done before I even knew who Deacon Vorbis was. ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've tried my best here, so I'm done talking. @PhilKnight, would you please handle this TA. HypnoBlader (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis, I suggest you get an admin to block @~2026-32492-01 at this point. HypnoBlader (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

HypnoBlader "At this point" strongly implies something has happened since your last message last night in which you proclaimed that "I've tried my best here, so I'm done talking." Nothing has happened since then. And what do you mean "get an admin to block" me? You've already pinged two different admins in this thread alone. How many more are you planning to bug until you get the response that you want? ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

As many as it takes, I hope. Mike Allen 17:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

MikeAllen Do you have specific comments about the edit requests? ~2026-32492-01 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

After an editor reported them to me, they were very difficult and antagonistic with myself as well, even though I don't have any stake in...any of this. Because there is an active discussion going on here, I'm not taking any action yet, though I likely will if there's no objection here. It's quite clear they're just going out of their way to be difficult and wasting the time of a lot of well-meaning editors. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

AI-generated bull in a china shop

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

User unfortunately seems to lack the English proficiency necessarily to properly contribute here. They've been on a run of creating probably AI generated pages relating to Sri Lankan and South Indian media personalities, then pagemoving those articles back and forth from draftspace and between multiple titles, leaving behind an absolute mess of redirects in their wake.

This came to my attention with Draft:Sandun Perera which they asked for help with at the Teahouse (in an AI generated comment), but when I clicked I found it was a redirect to Sandun Perera (Musician) which was itself a redirect to Sandun Perera (singer); all the while the original mainspace article Sandun Perera was under discussion at AfD.

There's a similar story with Draft:Harsh Roshan and Chamath Sangeeth (Music Producer). The latter is currently under discussion at AfD, where a TA (which seems to be Botempa editing logged out) left this comment showing their actual English proficiency. It would seem that all of this user's communications are being generated/translated by an LLM, which also goes to explain their odd behaviour such as asking for help with a draft only to then immediately move it to mainspace.

If nothing else, this editor should be pblocked from page creation in mainspace and page moving, since that's the main source of disruption here. Athanelar (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am an editor from Sri Lanka. I want to clarify that my intention is only to improve Wikipedia by writing about Sri Lankan and South Indian personalities. I admit that I sometimes used AI assistance for translation and drafting because English is not my native language. However, I always made sure to include reliable references and verifiable sources for all the information.I apologize for the mess created by moving pages between draftspace and mainspace. I am still learning the complex page-moving guidelines. I will stop using AI tools immediately and will not move any more pages without proper guidance. Please guide me on how to fix my mistakes instead of blocking me. Thank you Botempa (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you use any AI chatbot or translation tool to write this comment? We want to communicate with you directly, in your own words and with your own level of ability. Athanelar (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I used Google Translate to help me write my previous comment because my English is not perfect. I am sorry about that.Actually, when I write articles, I use both Google Translate and AI tools to help with my language. But I hope you can understand me. Honestly, I never create articles with fake information. I always include reliable references and sources.My native language is Sinhala, and I am just trying to support Wikipedia the best way I can. From now on, I will type directly using my own words and my own English level. Thank you for understanding...I repeat, I have never done anything wrong intentionally. If I did it unknowingly, I apologize. Botempa (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Just on a personal note; using AI tools will actually make learning English more difficult for you. You will not actually learn or improve your English unless you use it, because it is the process of thinking about it that makes you learn. Google Translate can be useful if you use it as an "advanced dictionary", but it is not helpful if you use it to translate whole comments for you. English is not my native language either, but I became good at it by using it (mainly on the internet). And it is okay if you write here with grammar errors or spelling errors, you do not need to be a native English speaker or even speak English completely correctly to participate here. But we do not want to talk to you through an AI bot, because we want to hear from you -- with your authentic learner's mistakes and errors. Then you will become better over time. Please don't feel bad about making errors in English, I promise you that it really is okay. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I also edit content on the Sinhala version after all, I know Sinhala very well. However, I am keen to learn English, even though it is challenging. Will you block my user page because of mistakes I made unintentionally? Please forgive me; I won't attempt to create new articles or move pages until I have truly mastered English in the meantime, I will simply focus on correcting errors.

i,m using google translate Botempa (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not an admin here, so I cannot block you. But I do not think that you will be blocked. My opinion is that you should not be blocked. Because you answered us honestly, you understand what the problem is, and you have promised to stop.

But if you continue, then someone may decide to block you. But it is simple for you to avoid this.

My advice is that you make small edits to pages that already exist. Fix typos, fix WP:MOS errors, improve infoboxes, and things like that. Check the talk pages for the articles you work on. This will help you learn English. If you are not sure if you understand something, it is okay to ask.

Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks. You should not try to do this yet, because you are not good enough in English yet you do this. That is okay. That will change over time. One day you will be good enough in English to create a new article in English. But first you need to learn.

There is no shame in having imperfect English. It means that you are learning a new language. Learning a new language is a good thing, and you should feel proud of yourself for doing it. You should just know your limits. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:18, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words and advice. I really appreciate your understanding. I will follow your advice and only do small edits like fixing typos and infoboxes on existing pages. I will not create new articles or move pages. Thank you for helping me learn.

Thank you again for understanding me. Botempa (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If you aren't fully comfortable in English, there are other Wikipedia projects in many languages including Sinhala, Tamil and Telugu. Perhaps you'd prefer to contribute there? Athanelar (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I also edit content on the Sinhala version after all, I know Sinhala very well. However, I am keen to learn English, even though it is challenging. Will you block my user page because of mistakes I made unintentionally? Please forgive me; I won't attempt to create new articles or move pages until I have truly mastered English in the meantime, I will simply focus on correcting errors. Botempa (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Botempa At this point (not sure about Athanelar though), pretty much people here (and likely the admins) assume good faith from you, as you've expressed that you intend to contribute to English Wikipedia - it's just that your English hasn't reached sufficient levels for you to write a Wikipedia article on your own, so it's unlikely that you would get sanctioned or blocked.

My advice for you is to first get used to Wikipedia through doing edits gurkubondinn has suggested above. You can also read other articles that can help you learn vocabulary or grammar. I recommend good articles or featured articles for this, as the community thinks that such articles have high quality. Simple English Wikipedia (https://simple.wikipedia.org) is also a good place to practice writing in English using more simple vocabulary and sentences. ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 13:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and advice! I will try to practice on Simple English Wikipedia as you suggested. I want to improve my English and contribute here in the future. Botempa (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree, glad to see this editor really wants to improve. Athanelar (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I didn't check Special:CentralAuth/Botempa before suggesting Simple English Wikipedia, they can't edit there as it stands. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is also the Simple English Wikipedia. This might be a good place for @Botempa to contribute and practice their English skills. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance and advice! I will try to practice on Simple English Wikipedia as you suggested. I want to improve my English and contribute here in the future. Botempa (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/දිල්ශාන්_ගුණසේකර

Hello! I would like to expand on my concerns regarding the Sinhala Wikipedia (si.wikipedia.org). The community there is critically understaffed with very few active users (around 144 total), meaning local backlogs and deletion tags are routinely unreviewed.

Because of this inactivity, the project has become a target for paid PR and self-promotional articles. For instance, the article contains clearly self-promotional reference links alongside broken sources. Many similar promotional biographies remain completely unchecked because the local community lacks active oversight.

As a native Sinhala speaker and an active editor, I want to take a proactive role in cleaning up these promotional pages, managing the deletion backlogs, and protecting the project from cross-wiki spam. However, holding a standard Request for Adminship (RfA) election on a functionally inactive wiki is highly impractical.

How can a dedicated local editor like myself request community-trusted tools or temporary administrative rights (perhaps via Meta-Wiki) to clean up these pages? Who should I contact to guide me through the proper global channels? Thank you! ~~~~ Botempa (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Botempa, I'd recommend contacting Lee (siwiki page), they appear to be the only active admin on Sinhala Wikipedia. I don't know much about meta, sorry. Hopefully someone else can help here Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The place to request permissions on Meta-Wiki will ultimately be m:SRP. However, before the Stewards are willing to grant permissions they need to see a request made on the local wiki following whatever the local wiki's processes for admin requests are. Importantly, though, stewards don't enforce any quorum requirement on admin requests, so if a wiki has no community at all and hence nobody comments on your request they can still grant rights. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 04:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

මට සමාවෙන්න! මමත් ආසයි ඔයාලා වගේ මේකේ දේවල් edit කරන්න වැරදි දේවල් නිවැරදි කරන්න..ඉතින් මම ඉගෙන ගන්න ගමන් සියලු දේ..මට කවුරුත් කියලා දෙනවා නම් ඒකටත් මම ගෞරව කරනවා.. Botempa (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Botempa You said here that I will stop using AI tools immediately but I can see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lochana Jayakodi which you created seems to plainly be AI generated; for one thing it cites a non-existent shortcut WP:NPER.

It's very important if you do want to contribute here that you make the effort to do so in your own words, as we've already discussed here. We know your English skills are limited, but that's why if you don't have the English skills to do things like file AfD reports, you should stick to doing things you can do while you build your skills. AI chatbots and translation tools shouldn't be used as a crutch, it's not possible for you to properly engage with these kinds of processes if you don't actually understand the things you're writing. Athanelar (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has 7,202,887 articles and 258,684 active editors. Sinhala has 25,581 and 144 (link). It really, really, needs help from people who speak the language. Every Wikipedia should be world-class in its own language. Speaking as someone who has translated articles from other languages, it is much easier to do if there is a well-written article in the base language.

The English article on the great Murali is 29 pages long. The Sinhala one is 3 pages long. That is just wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to build the Sinhala Wikipedia on my own because the Sinhala Wikipedia is at a poor level... because I know Sinhala well because it is my mother tongue... not many people in Sri Lanka use the Sinhala Wikipedia. Botempa (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you in touch with anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF)? They may be able to support you (financially or otherwise) in recruiting and retaining other editors. I'm sure someone here who is more knowledgeable about the WMF can tell you who to talk to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. See m:Wikimedia Foundation. Narky Blert (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

RobotGoggles - aspersions, accusations and personal attacks

RobotGoggles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 10mmsocket and myself are attempting to discuss what on the surface should be nothing more than a low level content dispute at Talk:Miyazaki Airport - however, it has become derailed because RobotGoggles is throwing aspersions about, accusing myself of lying (which I have not done, and I will defend that to the last), and telling another editor to Grow up. I have asked them to strike the unbased accusations and they have refused. Can someone please remind them of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Diffs:

• This is a lie, obvious to anyone who looks at the two edits I made. They are not the same versions, so I could not have "restored" anything. Only you pressed the Revert button. You engaged in edit warring without going to the Talk Page to discuss it. Edits are meant to Be Bold. Reverting a secondary edit is pointless edit warring, and you know the order of operations.
• Grow up.
• When you lie, expect to be called out for doing so. You'll get no points for whinging.
• Are you so sensitive to the point that you cannot fathom the same amount of personal attack as levied by 10mm being thrown back at them?
• go ahead and do so. Anyone can plainly see the truth when they look at the two edits I made, and the two reversions you made. The fact of the matter is, I made two good faith edits, you made one reversion demanding more notability, and when I delivered more sources directly from another article, you reverted that other edit as well. You lied, and you are refusing to own up to it.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The "grow up" comment was in response to my reply to a TA adding his two cents on his opinion of Danners240 and/or me. Maybe it was a little childish of me, so for that one respose I wouldn't judge him/her too harshly. However, the rest of it is excessive considering the civil discussion taking place. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As Danners430 so helpfully noted by copying my comment on their last bullet point, my comment about their lie is not a personal attack, it is an accurate description of what they did. In sum, I edited the Miyazaki Airport article to add additional context and important information about a 2024 incident where a World War II bomb detonated underneath a taxiway. I added useful links to other articles, including the one to unexploded ordinance, where the reader could go to read more information about this subject. They reverted my edit, with the edit note:

Reverted 5 edits by RobotGoggles (talk): Not really relevant details, and unsourced

As an editor wishing to improve the article in good faith, I took these critiques to heart in my next three edits.

As you can clearly see by looking at the diff, I did not revert Danners430's reversion. I instead went to the Unexploded ordinance article, copied the information from there (as if it was written well enough there to show relevant details and source the information), and made a new attempt to make an edit.

Danners430 reverted my edit again. This is a case of Danners430 edit warring. But instead of being reflective, and thinking about their actions, they went into my talk page and accused me of edit warring. This was gaslighting. My actions were entirely within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies, and if Danners430 took issue with my second edit, it was incumbent on them, not me, to take the dispute to the Talk Page. Instead of attempting to edit further, I did take to the Talk Page. And Danners430 doubled down on the lie. Danners430, demonstrably, lied. Twice, if not more times. When this was pointed out, Danners430 pretended that this simple statement of fact was a personal attack, an ad hominem. A flat mischaracterization. This is a fallacy fallacy and a non sequitur, as Danners430 completely deflects from the topic of conversation to now talk about their honor being impinged. Danners, rather abusively, insisted that I withdraw my comment about their lying. I am under no obligation to do so, as their lie is demonsterable, and documented. Now, they have taken the issue here.

This entire saga is centered on the fact that Danners430 is a frequent editor for airport pages. This is not meant to be an insult -- I say it to point out that they were enforcing a Manual of Style that they use for all airports. This airport, in regard to the events that occurred in October 2024, are unique. The airport is more notable, in fact, because this is a rare instance of unexploded ordinance nearly killing people on the tarmac of a taxiway. In the Talk Page, I cited additional sources to prove this is notable. I don't mean to litigate a conversation here that belongs on the talk Page, but I say all this to explain how Danners430 is mischaracterizing the interaction, and how their performance of great offense when being called out in a lie is just that, a performance to scare me away and deflect from the actual constructive dialogue on how to include this information on the article. I am more than willing to discuss the copy, how it should be phrased, and what details to include, but at no point did Danners430 attempt to engage with that, instead resorting to false accusations and clothing up my User Talk Page. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are multiple issues here. First, addressing the comments here - you re-added the irrelevant details in your second edit, so you did not address the critiques. Per WP:BRD, it's generally accepted that you, wishing to introduce content to the article, should be discussing - instead you tried again to add the content which I dispute has any place in that article. Leaving a notice about edit warring is accepted, and indeed encouraged, in these situations.

Second, accusing another editor of lying is a personal attack. Sorry, but that is a fact.

Third... you still aren't addressing the incivility shown in the rest of your comments. I mean, serious? Are you so sensitive to the point...? Perhaps you understand why I am unwilling to discuss this any further on the talk page and came here. I asked you to retract your attacks (accusations of lying), and instead you doubled down. When you are involved in a dispute, you discuss the content - not other editors you happen to dislike or take issue with. If you retract your attacks and incivility, I would be willing to return to discuss the dispute - but not when you are leaving comments like the above. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I will not retract statements that are demonstrably true, as I already stated. And since the details I added in my second edit were ripped directly from the Unexploded ordinance article, either that article ALSO has irrelevant details (it does not, the information I was copying was important information that any retelling of the events should include) or you are simply wrong about relevancy. I addressed your concerns in my second edit. You accused me of edit warring. You lied. I will not retract that statement as it is simply a fact, regardless of how offended you feel about your own actions being called out. It is, in fact, common practice to edit articles in a manner where one editor makes an edit, it gets reverted, and then they go back to edit again, taking the criticism in mind. The fact I copied content already present on Wikipedia proves this. The fact you continue to draw this out instead of taking responsibility for your actions is why I asked if you were so sensitive. I ask again, are you? Can you not just admit you were wrong and discuss the issue properly, without condescension? I challenge you to try and be civil before asking anyone else to do so. I was very civil. You were not, when you accused me of something I was not doing, and belittling my contributions, which were improving the quality of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So not only are you refusing to retract a personal attack, you're repeating it on the administrator's noticeboard? Wow. It's pretty clear that WP:CIVIL means very little.

I'm not discussing the content dispute here - that's something to be discussed on the article talk page, if you can bring yourself to be civil, which it appears you cannot. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, denying responsibility. It is entirely civil to call out lies. It is not civil, however, to perform a moral injury like you're in the Manchester Football Club. It's 2026. Not 1845. You should be able to reflect on your own actions and admit you were lying. It would be a personal attack if I called you a liar, which would make lying a central part of your identity. I did not do that. I (correctly, mind you) said that you told one lie, and I'm not about to bow down to your petty intimidation tactic of crying to the ANB. But you continue to tell the same lie over and over, and eventually the label "liar" becomes harder to avoid. RobotGoggles (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Not only are you WP:WIKILAWYERING about "lies" vs "liar" (if you are saying someone lied, you are, in fact, calling them a liar), you are making personal attacks right here and right now. Stop doing so immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User:RobotGoggles - You have repeatedly stated that User:Danners430 lied. Do you have proof that Danners430 knew that the statements in question were untrue? Even if you can prove that they made statements that were factually incorrect, you can only prove that they lied if you can prove that they knew that their statements were untrue? Do you have proof? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd note the whole premise seems to be flawed. It's perfectly normal to say someone reverted or restored if they partially returned to an earlier version. There is zero requirement an editor needs to use the revert button. WP:3RR makes it clear "The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.". Danners430 made this revert . RobotGoggles made this revert / restoration . It's easy to see that RobotGoggles edits partially undid Danners430's changes since they in part returned the text to an earlier state. For example, RobotGoogle's revert restored mention of and the wikilink to unexploded ordinance as well as mention of 79 years and other stuff Danners430 had removed via their revert. It doesn't have to be entirely the same, reverts never have to be entirely the same. So the statement wasn't only not a lie, it wasn't even untrue. It doesn't even matter whether the earlier state was written by RobotGoggles or someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Yes under a number of definitions a true statement can still be a lie if the person believed it to be false. But let's not complicate things because under the vast vast majority of circumstances on Wikipedia, a statement being true is conclusive evidence it wasn't a lie. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

P.P.S. I struck the last sentence above because reading the dispute more carefully Danners430 did say your preferred version so the fact it was RobotGoggles earlier version does I guess matter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Would it have been better if Danners430 included the word partially before restored? Probably. Would it have been better if Danners430 had initiated talk page discussion after their first revert? Sure, just as it would have been better if RobotGoggle's also initiated discussion before they made their first revert. (Since a revert had already happened by Danners430 it was fairly reasonable to doubt simply copying whole sale from another article would resolve the dispute. And one of them needed to initiate discussion, it's pointless for them both to wait for the other side.) But none of this is the stuff for ANI. The only reason it is is because of calling something a lie which wasn't even untrue. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Even taking this definition of reversion, which I'm willing to grant hypothetically, the Three Revert Rule you just cited gives yet another reason why Danners430 was wrong to accuse me of edit warring. At most, I made one revert. Danners430 made two. And as I said on the talk page and here, I would have had no issue with going back and forth a bit with my edits to refine them and pass Danners430's criteria. This happens many times on Wikipedia, I have seen many people's edits improve through a brief back and forth of reverts, which can result in better citations or better copy. Danners430, instead, went onto my Talk Page after they made their second revert and accuse me of edit warring. It was incendiary and inappropriate and only serves to act as a rhetorical sledgehammer, stopping me or anyone else from improving the article in any way. RobotGoggles (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The absence of WP:3RR violations does not indicate an absence of edit warring. It's simply one version of edit warring that has a bright line. All Mazda Miatas are cars, but not all cars are Mazda Miatas. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. And none of this gets at why you said they were a liar when they made a statement that wasn't even untrue. Also there is nothing stopping you discussing what changes you want to make. If you aren't to accept that improving an article sometimes means you have to discuss your changes first then Wikipedia isn't a great fit for you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The proof is in the edit comments. Danners430's original reversion stated that they did so because my original edit was "not relevant and unsourced". The fact that I went out and copied the same citation that exists on the other article handles the latter issue, and the fact I almost entirely copied the text from another article handles the former. When they accuse me of edit warring, they also can see the stark differences between my two edits. Not only that, but my second edit included an extensive edit summary explicitly detailing how I was addressing their concerns. They accuse me of this anyway. The only way they could have not known the falsity of their statement would be if they reverted my edits on instinct and did not read a word that I wrote. My second set of edits were not a reversion simply due to the fact that I directly addressed their concerns they voiced in their original edit summary. As I said before, I made a good faith effort to incorporate their concerns in a new edit. If Danner430 still took issue with this, then they did not adequately state their real, genuine opposition to the edits, and that's on them. I cannot respond to comments that are entirely within their head, I can only respond and adapt my language based on what I can plainly read on the edit summary. Danners430 knew this. They had to have. Because I was clearly addressing both the relevancy and the sourcing.RobotGoggles (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't properly understand why a reversion was made all the more reason to talk instead of edit warring like you did. While edit summaries should give an idea of why an edit was made neither of you should be primarily communicating via edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Did your second set of edits remove or modify any content that was added by another editor? If yes, it was in fact a reversion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

RobotGoggles hasn't edited since the 30th, so just commenting to keep the archive bot at bay - real life is a thing after all.

Just to address some of the points made here (I've deliberately refrained from replying to them all, as that wouldn't be productive)...

• RobotGoggles attempted twice to add what I would argue is irrelevant detail to the article where the dispute is. Whether that is correct or not is irrelevant to this report - that's what needs to be discussed at the article talk page.
• Yes, they addressed the issue of it being unsourced, but still added the (in my opinion) irrelevant content back into the article after being reverted. By Wikipedia's definition (sorry, but that's what matters here... not what RobotGoggles believes "edit warring" means), that is edit warring because they tried a second time to insert their preferred content into the article, having been previously reverted. My normal expectation is that they would discuss it at the article talk page, which they did after I left the edit warring notice on their talk page. Placing that is normal practice... and it's worth noting, they did the same on my talk page . When they did eventually open a discussion, the very first sentence was (and still is) user:Danners430 has engaged in an edit War on this article, and has refused to engage in good faith. - that's not a content discussion, that's immediately opening with accusations and discussing another editor's conduct - WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. So how exactly was that meant to turn into a productive discussion?
• I maintain, as multiple editors have confirmed, that I did not lie, and I do not lie on Wikipedia. I have asked multiple times that RobotGoggles retract that accusation and apologise for the personal attack, which they have doubled down on in this thread. I am more than happy to resume discussion on the article talk page if that is done, but I will not discuss content with an editor that throws personal attacks about.

Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe - Relisting reversions at MfD and unwillingness to discuss

Relisting discussions at deletion venues is a well-established norm through both precedence and explicit consensus. The last formal discussion on relisting at MfD that I am aware of is Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? which resulted in the statement: There is strong consensus to support relistings of MfDs, when used in good faith.

In May, SmokeyJoe decided to express displeasure with a relist that I performed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list. I left them a nice note in return on their talk page. No response was received.

Earlier today, they reverted a relist that I performed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps. I left them another note. They have been active, even on their talk page, since. I have not received any correspondence.

It saddens me to bring this here, but friction about this issue has been going on for too long. The last time SmokeyJoe and I discussed this matter (that I can recall) was at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 17#MfD relisting (six years ago), when SmokeyJoe attempted to inject their point of view (without establishing consensus) into WP:MFD/CI.

Just to note, this was an issue here before e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings during Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?. The RfC settled the matter guidance based on consensus wise, but apparently not behavior-wise.

I would ask that the community endorse my relist at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps, reimplement said relist there, and give SmokeyJoe a stern, formal warning not to revert relists in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

A sampling of SmokeyJoe's personal qualms with the relisting process (involving users besides me) over the years: 2010, 2016—1, 2016—2, 2016—3, 2016—4, 2016—5, 2016—6, 2017—1, 2017—2, 2020, 2024—1, 2024—2. I will also note that over half of those comments are directed at Northamerica1000. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear from SmokeyJoe, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a rationale that it makes it okay to revert a relisting, let alone a relisting in a discussion where he'd already expressed an opinion on the merits. And to head off one justification--relists speak for themselves and always have. A relisting user doesn't need to offer an explanation, and in fact probably shouldn't because it might be hard to do so without involving themselves in the actual discussion. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • First, I disagree with SmokeyJoe's rationale for reverting the relisting. His edit summary was: Pointless worthless relisting does more harm by hiding it from the backlog.. No. That is incorrect. Relisting brings an MFD to the top of the list. I very seldom if ever look at Old Business in MFD, which is where the backlog is, because I look at the top. I usually ignore userbox items, but I will take another look at anything that pops back to the top. So far from hiding the relisted item, relisting it brings it back to the attention of editors who view MFD. The purpose of relisting is to get renewed attention, and it does that. If SmokeyJoe thinks that being in the backlog gets more attention, I think that he is thinking backward.
  • Second, I see guidelines that say that deletion discussions can be relisted. Relisting is common at AFD, and is occasionally done at CFD and TFD. I see that SmokeyJoe's effort to deprecate it at MFD was not enacted, so it is permitted at MFD. I have not seen a guideline saying that relisting can be unilaterally reverted.
  • Third, has this really been going on for ten years?
  • Fourth, I don't think that relisting was pointless or worthless.
  • Fifth, if a relisting really is pointless or worthless, very little or no harm is done by delaying its close for a week. If a relisting was even slightly useful, harm may be done by not relisting.
  • Sixth, I would like to hear an explanation from SmokeyJoe of what he thinks are worthless relistings. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Godsy‘s edit was a comment-free pointless relist that disrupts the normal function of MfD by shuffling the order of MfD discussions. It being a worthless and disruptive action in projectspace, it is appropriate to revert.

It is disruptive because it causes the old stale listing to be shuffled back into the process thereby hiding it from the backlog. Old discussions moving into the backlog is important because the backlog gets special attention. Currently, there are more discussions in the backlog than the main list, which is a clear flag for qualified closers to come and close discussions that are essentially exhausted.

Relisting does not attract new MfD participant, but messes with regulars who comment systematically. If more attention is desired, the answer is Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, not comment-free relisting.

Relisting, without a meaningful comment, is not normal practice at MfD. Some years ago, two editors, Godsy and User:Ricky81682 attempted to doing it routinely, and I objected, with the reason above, and they stopped. Godsy however, sometimes returns to start doing it again.

I have delayed answering because I have been thinking on how to describe what Godsy is doing without it being insulting. I think he is attempting to gnome processes according to guidelines, but without thinking on why he is doing it.

Relisting is an admin action. Godsy is not an admin, but non admins are welcome to perform many admin actions at XfDs if it is clearly helpful. Pointless worthless comment free relisting does not fit that.

If routine comment-free resulting of old discussions were a good idea, then it is a bot job, and Godsy should not be doing bot-like editing at MfD.

Relisting with a comment that refocuses by pointing out the reason why the closer can’t yet close, or due to a processs problem such as the MfD not having been listed properly, is of course, most welcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Nine years ago, when I was still an admin, I was trying to deal with the MFD backlog and dropped arguing about whether to blank a decade old one-sentence page (some of which had BLP issues) or delete them resulted in classic namecalling and some wild conspiracy theory that relisting MFDs that had no comments was a deliberate plan to accomplish something. As was noted and remains policy now at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business older than seven days is old business as policy hasn't changed. It seems like a reverting people while assuming no good faith remains acceptable. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

We solved the problem by implementing WP:G13. Shuffling the MfD list order was never going to help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess that for better or worse, I've become a MFD regular. I'm not up to date on what previous discussions might have concluded, but my personal opinion as a regular is more aligned with @SmokeyJoe than with @Robert McClenon. We rarely have a severe backlog at MFD these days (though more participation would be welcome). In terms of just garnering more attention, seeing something sitting there, old but unclosed, in my opinion provokes more attention than just moving it to the top of the list. To be a bit blunt, @Godsy, you may well be in the right as to the last extant policy discussion, but gnoming process edits like this would probably get more acceptance if you were active in discussions there as well. It feels like someone trying to help by rearranging the papers on the desks of the people actually working on them. Martinp (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting a discussion is not "gnoming". voorts (talk/contributions) 15:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what word to use. I tried my best to find one with a mild positive valence to it, and I think gnoming in article space is viewed at least mildly positively. However, I continue to think that while the relist was doubtless well-intentioned, was apparently allowed under policy, and reverting it wasn't a great idea, it was a relist that (in my opinion) added no value. I understand where both Godsy and Smokey were coming from, but generally agree with Rhododendrites below. The specific discussion in question has now been normally closed, having accumulated 2 more !votes. I think in terms of ANI, a serving of trout for two is all that is needed; though Rhododendrites' suggestion that the way forward me hashed out on the MfD talk page is not a bad one. Martinp (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There was an RfC about this issue. It can't just be hashed out by local consensus on the MfD talk page by MfD regulars. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Martinp: I have contributed (in one way or another) to over ~1200 discussions at MfD; compare this to your ~250 discussions. I have participated in a great number of discussions, relisted many, closed many, and been involved in many conversations about the policy and procedures there. I have even had a hand in the mfd template infrastructure. Granted, I have periods of more or less activity — but to characterize me as uninvolved at the venue is misleading. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Godsy, my apologies. Indeed, I can see how my comment came across as implying you were never active there, but that wasn't my intent. My lens was recent, not cumulative, and my goal was to explain why you got a negative reaction, not to pass judgment on you. You came into an office where 4 files were placed on a table to be processed. You could have helped out; instead, you moved one file from one side to the other and left again. Someone actively working in that office moved it back again. Does it really matter? I'm just sad that we've spent so much effort here discussing who was allowed to move those entries around compared to how much attention actual MfD deletion discussions receive. Martinp (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate it, comrade. It was actually 5 files at the time. I would agree that it does not matter, except that SmokeyJoe and I have discussed relists at MfD ad nauseam. My action was in accordance with established community guidance and policy. With their reversion and my post here, perhaps it was the boiling point for both of us (a decade plus in the making). I was not willing to edit war over it (wisened away from anything of that sort years ago); however, their action was beyond the pale. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

We had an RfC about relisting in 2016. Back then, MfD was far more active. It wasn't until 2017 that drafts received an expiration date, meaning any that didn't go through AfC had to be sent through MfD. Today, there are exactly four nominations in all of MfD. A list of four does not need relisting. The answer, though, is to propose this first on the MfD talk page rather than just do it (process being important). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It has been a while my friend; I hope this finds you well! I would put forth the counter-idea that we should treat relisting at MfD like any other venue (e.g. RfD) so that it remains in practice whether or not the venue is experiencing a slump or boom for the consistency of cross-participants sake. A machine that stays well-oiled is best. Take for example {{mfd relist}} and User talk:Legobot/2025#Miscellany for Deletion relisting; things fall into disrepair if they suffer from disuse. If we decertify relisting at MfD now it may cause problems in the future especially due to the diffs above that I provided showing SmokeyJoe's issues with relisting regardless of the level of activity at the venue. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Godsy. It's not an unreasonable perspective, so let me reframe my position for the narrow case of this thread: relisting is presently allowed, and shouldn't be undone. Even if we consider it unnecessary, undoing it is just as unnecessary and has the additional problem of running afoul of the current consensus position. I would argue that given MfD is on the whole less active now than it was when that RfC ran, however, that it's probably time to revisit it. Whether it's helpful or not seems more a matter for that future RfC than for ANI, where it's plain that "if relisting at MfD is ok, it's not appropriate to undo it". I don't think it's an egregious offense, but I'd like to see Joe commit to stop until such point as another discussion changes that RfC's consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe has given two answers to why he reverted the relisting. The longer answer is the one that he had already provided in the edit summary, which I think is wrong. I acknowledge that some editors look at the Old Business. I look at the Current Discussions, because a deletion discussion that has fallen into Old Business is one that I have either already voted in or one that I have decided to skip. Then SmokeyJoe made another unrelated point, which has more substance, and that is that relisting is an administrator task, and Godsy is not an administrator, and so their relist was a bad non-admin close (or in this case a non-admin closing action that is not a close). Which point is SmokeyJoe trying to emphasize? Why didn’t he focus on the more substantive argument? Martinp also makes a useful snarky observation, which is that Godsy doesn’t do anything in MFD except to pop up and relist discussions. While I think that their relistings are appropriate, I agree that they seem to be trying to help by rearranging the papers on the desks of the people actually working on them.

I listed five questions that maybe should be discussed on the MFD talk page, and then am not sure whether they are worth arguing about. It appears to me that Godsy is not helping by just occasionally popping up at MFD to relist discussions, and that SmokeyJoe, who is a regular participant at MFD, which is useful, was not helping by reverting a relisting, and that neither of them needs to be warned, but that this discussion can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about closing the discussion. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? is still good law and shouldn't be nullified by local consensus. If, as SmokeyJoe says, relisting is an admin action, then reverting that action when you're WP:INVOLVED (as any deletion discussion participant would be) is a real problem for anything short of outright vandalism. An unhelpful relist (if it be unhelpful) isn't vandalism. If policy has lagged behind practice then there are ways to change policy to reflect that practice. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Here are few discussions that I participated at (1 keep, 1 comment, and 1 close), in just this June alone: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stakommus3053/Userboxes/User Stalinist, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jonah and the Great Fish (Whale). This may not be exhaustive, just what I found off-hand for variety. As I show in my comment above to Martinp, my participation at MfD runs very deep and has been in a vast number of forms. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have struck my comment about User:Godsy. User:SmokeyJoe - Is your primary objection to Godsy's relisting that they are comment-free, or that it changes the order in a manner that is inconvenient for you (while convenient for me, and maybe some other editors), or that Godsy is not an administrator? If a non-administrator should not be relisting MFDs, why should a non-administrator be reverting the relisting of MFDs? There is a guideline that deletion discussions may sometimes be relisted, and a previous conclusion that this guideline is applicable to MFDs. I don't see a guideline that says that non-administrators may revert relistings that they dislike. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at the Village Pump at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Continuation_of_ANI_Discussion_About_MFD_Relisting, which I think is a better forum for an issue about policy about deletion discussions. Are there any unresolved questions about conduct? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Mass sockpuppet creation

FloridaArmy falling into the WP:CIR pit

User:Perquirius reported by User:GTP Loopbreaker

Moved from the edit warring noticeboard.

 – ToBeFree (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Perquirius keeps editing articles related to philosophy for the sole purpose of changing what the first link is even when multiple other users think it was better with philosophy as the first link and changing it back over and over. Though I initially made this account intending to make more stuff lead to philosophy, I have read the notice at the top of WP:GTP that says not to make edits motivated by the concept and as such have shifted my focus to using the concept as a way to test how well knowledge flows together on the site rather than getting stuck in circular definitions. Perquirius, on the other hand, has been making talk page edits showing a clear deliberate intent to make things not lead to philosophy and has shown an unwillingness to accept articles in the area of philosophy not being exactly the way they want them to ensure they end in loops not including philosophy and keeps changing stuff back repeatedly to almost the same version someone else has already reverted. GTP Loopbreaker (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You could also report yourself, because you're doing exactly the same thing by making sure that virtually every philosophical topic is immediately linked to "Philosophy", even though it's almost always already clear that the subject is philosophical – whether from the title, the surrounding text, or simply common sense. Surely we're not going to write: In astronomy, the Sun is [...], In history, World War II was [...], In geography, Paris is [...] or In literature, Hamlet is [...]? That all seems unnecessary to me. Just describe what the topic is, not all the fields in which it appears. After all, the terms "subject" and "object", for example, are also used in psychology, spirituality, religion, neuroscience, physics, etc. By the way, I find it strange that you want to silence me by cutting me off from the debate – all of a sudden, without any warning or discussion (the latter of which I did, in fact, try to have with you). Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It's true that I may not be perfect at identifying what is best for the encyclopedia, I may still be biased in favor of GTP working in the same way you seem biased in favor of it not working, but I can also say that I haven't been the only person to revert or change your edits, multiple others did so on multiple pages, and the point was made here that "it is a bit unusual that a bunch of philosophy topics don't lead to philosophy." GTP Loopbreaker (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see this as an edit war, since I keep coming up with new suggestions instead of just reverting my old changes over and over again. But I understand that it can be fun to keep the "Getting to Philosophy" phenomenon going. But as I already stated in Wikipedia talk:Getting to Philosophy#My theory and suggestion (apparently a forum post?), it makes sense that everything leads to philosophy if a handful of important and obvious philosophical topics begin with In philosophy. To me, this seems obvious to me, and therefore unnecessary. But maybe I think too philosophically in everyday life, and some people don't find it logical that something would be philosophical (and they need to be reminded that this is how things are in philosophy). 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, I'm aware that liking the phenomenon has biased me personally and I may not be able to completely see through that bias, but I have tried to improve how articles flow into each other and eliminate circular definitions or sometimes cases where the first link jumps to a completely different subject area based on a tangential mention of something, like by adding the link to object (philosophy) to reality where previously the first link was to culture which was casually mentioned rather than part of the first sentence definition. GTP Loopbreaker (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Ah well, just do whatever you think is best; I'll just let it go. I don't want to spoil the fun of "Getting to Philosophy" either, since it's become something of a tradition by now. 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Not this crap again. As the note at the top of Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy makes entirely clear, making edits to articles 'motivated by the concepts' on the page is disruptive. If your edit to any article, on any topic, is influenced in any way by 'what effect will this have on the 'getting to philosophy' link chain', you shouldn't be making it. Neither of you. Not to make the link. Not to break the link. Not for any reason that has anything to do with the link. As long as this phenomenon was unnoticed, it was interesting, and based on useful data. When people started fucking around with articles in order to 'fix' it, or to 'break' it, the whole thing became useless as data describing a phenomenon, and instead became an exercise in timewasting at best, and was not infrequently damaging to the flow of articles. Forget you've ever read 'Getting to Philosophy' and stick to writing content for the readers rather than engaging in a facile exercise in arbitrary word-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You cannot unsee what you have seen. 😉 How can anyone ever edit the first sentence of fundamental pages if people are constantly trying to break the chain or keep it going and everyone will be aware of this? Reminds me of The Game (mind game). Anyway, what really matters to me is that every fundamental philosophical topic leads to its essence via the first link. I find it strange that some topics do start with In philosophy and some don't. That's inconsistent in my opinion. Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Why the heck should anyone expect consistency in a user-generated collaborative encyclopaedia covering the diversity of topics it does, never mind attempt to impose it? We don't care if you find it inconsistent. If you want to impose arbitrary rules for no better reason than to maintain 'consistency' with your own personal preferences, start your own. DO NOT EDIT WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES WITH THE INTENTION OF AFFECTING HOW THEY MAKE OR BREAK LINKS IN THE CHAIN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I've said what I wanted to say. I don't want to make a big deal out of this either. I won't get involved in this any further. See also and . Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by Cardim Correia

Cardim Correia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Also removal of content on 24 June 2026, and repeatedly wrong changes to short descriptions on 24 June 2026 and 25 June 2026. AriuCH (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-37509-54

I received a legal threat from ~2026-37509-54 (talk · contribs) about a page at User talk:ElijahPepe#Lance schroyer. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

TA blocked, that was as straightforward a legal threat as they come. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I've revdelled the article. There's absolutely no reason to include the name of a non-public figure like that in the article, particularly when such individuals routinely face threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Fine with me. I know nothing meaningful about the article subject, hence my not reverting the TA, figured I'd leave that to someone more familiar than me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Suspected cite spamming

I would like to ask for a review of the editing patterns of Bloggerscouncil (talk · contribs). Indeed, I’m not sure if this is the right place, but let’s see.

A quick look at the account's recent contributions shows a relatively large volume of edits in a relatively short period, primarily adding citations and external links across multiple articles, particularly those related to space exploration and AI. The editing pattern appears unusual to me and may warrant a closer look for possible cite spamming or promotional editing (WP:SPAM and, if relevant, WP:COI). In the sources posted and the External links sections across multiple articles, all recent edits from that account lead to the name Sarah Peracha.

Could an administrator please take a look at the account and determine whether any further action is needed? Thank you. Lazarokardenjas (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, this is definitely spam, of the edits I checked (including some from when the account was last active several years ago), these are all links to open-access sites, with posts by Sarah Peracha or Peracha Ventures, etc. They were warned way back to stop linking/citing Medium, but their latest edits are just using other open-access sites instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Years of just promoting. And intermittently here. Blocked from articles until we get a good response. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

COI / SPA edits at Boost Mobile (Australia)

Blatant incivility

and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK, listen to editors, etc.

Fassstproductions (talk · contribs)

@Cullen328's Talk page is on my watchlist. The insult remark caught my eye and me by surprise. You don't need to know Wikipedia's P&G to not insult people. The person is also unable to listen to advice. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I was involved in that exchange having highlighted the COI nature of their edits. This a new and clearly inexperienced editor, who had demonstrated incivility, article ownership and threats of meatpuppetry, but they haven't edited since and won't be able to edit the article in question as it's now semi-protected. Personally I'd leave them alone now - Cullen328 already gave them some stern warnings. Let's see if they learn and turn into a productive editor. Just my US$0.02. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no excuse for calling other people idiots. Mistakes are one thing, insulting others right off the bat is another. I also don't see an apology, just more "You're wrong", "You're 1000% wrong", etc. I don't think this editor will ever be productive, especially cause they seem to be an SPA concerned with righting wrongs. AGF, ROPE, BITE, and the rest of our social policies are not a suicide pact. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, the remark "the stuff gives undue weight to a insignificant part of my career !" (my italics) strongly suggests that the editor themselves are the subject, rather than their brother-in-law. I guess they typed a little too fast there. Cullen has already page-blocked and semiprotected, or I'd be very tempted to block as NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC).

It is my hope that this new editor, who is now taking some time off, will read the links that I and other editors have encouraged them to read, and learn a little bit about how things operate on Wikipedia. I've looked into the content dispute. It seems that the musician in question pursued a musical venture for three years or so, namely a heavy metal type band, that did not work out and received the opposite of critical acclaim. The musician decided to shut down that band and try to remove all traces of its music from the internet. All understandable and OK so far. But Wikipedia does not engage in reputation management or whitewashing of any sort. That three year venture is part of the musician's life story and has a place in their Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked, under the username policy, as the user name "Fassstproductions" implies a company, not an individual user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This editor first came to my attention as a bot listing at WP:UAA. I chose not to make a username block because I could not find any evidence of an entity by that name with the triple s. Interaction with them rapidly turned sour. I have no disagreement with The Bushranger's block. Cullen328 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Vandal or logged out admin and AFD oddness

User Cambial Yellowing

This user openly lies that Donetsk People's Republic is not a claimed subdivision of Russia, saying Unsourced. not a subdivision. don't use inappropriate parameters. We don't need to source everything WP:BLUE. This user also seem to be POV pushing claiming Russian language on the infobox for Luhansk is pre-emotive, unnecessary, and unhelpful to the reader. His edits doesn't seem to be WP:AFG. He also says that I'm attacking him because he's openly lying? What else should I say. I've been on wikipedia for years, I saw these tactics a lot. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Another example rmv WP:UNSOURCED. which is not true again. Luhansk Oblast was later annexed by Russia in late 2022 which makes it de facto Russia. WP:JUST. Beshogur (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Accusing someone of lying can absolutely be considered a personal attack, since lying involves a person making a claim whilst knowing it's untrue - since we're on the internet, that's an extremely high burden of proof that you've given yourself.

What if they sincerely believe that this claim requires a source before it can be reinstated? Can you prove this isn't what they believe?

I'm not going to go onto the merits of the article changes right now (not until I've looked into the rest properly), but it's possible for someone to be mistaken, misinformed or to just not understand something - that's not the same thing as lying. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are we supposed to show this user to make him believe it? He exactly knows what he's editing. Having over 20,000 edits on wikipedia, I doubt he's uninformed about this issue. The lead literally states the region/city is annexed by Russia. You don't need to source everything on infobox. This is not even the only political dispute on wikipedia. Another example of removing Russian language: The subject is a city in Ukraine, as per reliable sources and the article body and lead. There is no reason to add names in foreign languages to the infobox or lead, and doing so is inappropriate. Per same article, the city is 44.4% Russian speaker per 2002 census. This is systematic POV pushing. It's not good faith editing. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also found this: Talk:Mariupol, several times

• It’s not obvious. It requires a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
• You haven't given a reason that justifies your proposed unsourced change. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Sources must support proposed changes. They don't support your ridiculous proposal. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC
• Because your proposal is unsourced and ridiculous. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• None of the reliable sources there say Mariupol is part of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:33, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This user seem to use "unsourced/reliable sources needed" etc. as a shield for his edits. I'm not saying the city is Russia. It's de jure Ukraine and de facto controlled by Russia. This is not the only political topic on wikipedia. Beshogur (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused. If on the Luhanks article you click "annexed by Russia", it leads here, where it says, The declared annexation is unrecognized by the international community, with the exception of North Korea and, formerly, also Ba'athist Syria. If I had to guess, this is a de facto vs de jure issue, that alone is ample reason to believe that stating it belongs to one side or the other needs to be sourced. Heck, just say "disputed" and have a footnote noting the de facto and de jure status, with citations. WP:BLUE is a nice essay, but WP:V is clear AND policy: any material whose verifiability has been challenged... must include an inline citation. I think it's fair to say it's been challenged. Am I missing something? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not editing in favor of a side, claiming it belongs to one, not other.

The fact is, those places are:

• de jure Ukraine
• de facto Russia (annexed/unrecognized but controlled by them)

that's it basically. This is not the only de facto / de jure topic on wikipedia. We have to be neutral.

Ukraine topics have been a taboo on wikipedia like "nono, Russia doesn't even control them". Nobody denies it's de jure part of Ukraine, though they are occupied by Russia. That's it.

Regarding languages issue, most of those areas were already Russian speakers before the war, so systematic removal of Russian names from the infobox is POV pushing. Again I don't even support Russia. Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at, and I don't disagree, but Wikipedia isn't about WP:THETRUTH. I concur with your assessment of facts. I also know that Wikipedia doesn't care about editor assessments of facts, it cares about WP:RS which support them. Perhaps CY should have instead cited WP:IBP instead of sourcing, as in that article a quick scan didn't show any prose saying it was claimed by Russia OR Ukraine, (n.b.: CY removed both) nor that it is de facto Russia. An infobox isn't supposed to introduce new information, only summarize parts of the article.

Put another way, if I were to say Bell Helicopters is owned by Textron, this would be factually correct, but it also would be removed unless I had a source to support it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

So the way is I go to California and say "unsourced, show me source that California is USA", then someone have to prove it with a citation on the infobox? Anyways, an example of de jure and de facto: Morphou (Cyprus), Feodosia (Crimea). Beshogur (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

California isn't a great example, considering the pretty large (sourced) section about the history of the area as the USA was formed, plus various associated articles such as History of California before 1900. So yes, the claim that California is part of the USA is indeed sourced. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm kidding. Thanks for your effort tho. Beshogur (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! I had fun reading up the history anyway, so my time wasn't wasted. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The infobox says Territory of Ukraine's Donetsk Oblast controlled by Russia as DPR shown in red and pink; territory claimed but not controlled shown in yellow and blue There is no "nono, Russia doesn't even control them", we show exactly how much Russia controls. Saying it should not be listed as a subdivision of Russia is a legitimate disagreement (particularly when the change is unsourced), and it is unacceptable to say someone is doing disruptive edits and lying for taking the opposing side, and continuing to do so after being warned that this is a personal attack. I am involved in the language issue, but where is the "systematic removal" from Cambial Yellowing? All I see are a couple reverts on a couple different pages of someone else adding it and then discussing on the talk page, which seems perfectly acceptable. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

After taking time to read up on things, I have to agree - I can't really put it any better than you, Phil & EducatedRedneck have already. Political issues & disputes always benefit from having an available source, regardless. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Explaining it in a easy way: Donetsk Oblast is part of Ukraine (de jure administrative division), Donetsk People's Republic is Russia's version (though unrecognized). They're separate of eachother. Second one is part of Russia, Ukraine doesn't claim such entity. The particular entity can't be a disputed region, though the region is disputed, and the article isn't about "Donetsk region", which doesn't exist. See Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (Russia). We can take these as examples. It's not that hard. Beshogur (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This would have been a great comment on the talk page. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If anyone asks you for a source, even including for the fact that the sky is blue, then just provide it. It's not difficult for any true encyclopedic information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Reverted 1 edit by Beshogur (talk): Rv troll] sure @Cambial Yellowing:. Beshogur (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Also did the same with Federal subjects of Russia:

• WP:UNSOURCED: responsibility for providing citations lies with the individual restoring material. Until a source is found that supports it - unlikely - this does not belong in the key facts for the page.
• Do not repeatedly insert unsourced content into Wikipedia
• restore factual version

User uses "unsourced/seek consensus" as a shield for his edit warrings. Beshogur (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm very confused. You've been around longer than I have. It seems obvious to me that WP:BURDEN applies. If there's a dispute without an affirmative consensus for inclusion, any datum stays out. I hear that you think CY is edit warring, but edits from two years ago don't make a compelling case for present action. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also a bit worried that you're going back over two years to try to find evidence to bolster your case. They should absolutely not have called you a troll (that's also a personal attack) but the vast majority of claims on Wikipedia do need sources - that's why "{citation needed}" is a bit of a meme.

I don't think there's much appetite for any further action, especially if there's nothing recent that would warrant admin attention.

Right now, the general consensus in this thread is that sources are indeed necessary. You've put your case forward as best you can, so perhaps it's time to cut your losses and start looking for some sources to improve the article? If you find appropriate sources but issues remain, then you (and we) will have a clearer idea of what's going on. As it is, this report pretty much boils down to "{citation needed}". In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: pretty sure I know what a citation is. Will you be satisfied if I put here 10 citations of Russia's annexation of the region here? That's not the topic. The user has been edit warring on this topic for a while, and there is example of him claiming there is no source in one talk page 5 at least 5 times. example of Russia being de facto authority in Mariupol. On Talk:Mariupol the user's whole thing is "unsourced", while the article clearly mentions that Russians have captured the city. Clear example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU Beshogur (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Administrator sanctions are preventative only, not punishment.

Before any sanction can be placed, there must be evidence of present disruptive behaviour and imminent or continuing damage/disruption that a block or ban would actively prevent (see my post below for further details on the policy).

This means that edits from 2024 can't be used to justify blocking in 2026 (I'm sure there may be extreme cases where you could do that, but I don't see that being the case here).

I really don't like saying this next part, and I wish I didn't have to - but this is my honest impression of the discussion so far. I've also spent nearly an hour writing it, because I want to be fair to you, but I also need to be honest. Sincere apologies to all readers for the length. If you don't want to read all of this, I completely understand.

It feels like you're having a lot of trouble letting this go and accepting consensus - when your points are countered, it's as if you're go looking for more reasons to get CY sanctioned (even if the evidence is sparse, outdated or has already been addressed).

We've addressed the allegations of POV pushing, edit warring, disruptive edits and lying. We've taken this very seriously and spent time looking through your evidence, but we're volunteers too and we can't keep on checking out every edit you find from the past & each allegation you bring up. There's a line to what we can do for you. LordCollaboration has already told you that All I see are a couple reverts on a couple different pages of someone else adding it and then discussing on the talk page, which seems perfectly acceptable. .

Four editors have told you that the core issue comes down to the fact that, yes, you should provide sources when making the edit(s) that started this all off. Wanting a source isn't biased, it's being a Wikipedian.

There does appear to be evidence of WP:ICANTHEARYOU in this discussion, but it's not in the place you're thinking. We've answered your questions, but you're just not satisfied with our answers - unfortunately, there's not much we can do about that. You've taken this to the noticeboard and we've spent our own personal time trying to give you a fair decision on the merits of the evidence provided. This isn't the answer you wanted, that much is clear.

Please don't let this become a boomerang!

This thread has been open for a while with input from multiple editors, yet not one other person feels that CY should be sanctioned. If another editor or admin feels differently, I'm sure they'll say so.

My honest, sincere advice: Unwatch this discussion, look for sources so you can reinstate your edits and move onto other things, please. Everyone starts a discussion that they feel incredibly strongly about, yet it never goes anywhere. You can run yourself ragged pushing and pushing, exhaust yourself and the community's patience, or accept that this is probably going to be closed without action. It might be that there's no evidence now but will be in the future, or perhaps it wasn't as strong a case as you thought. You put a lot of thought and work into this so it's understandable that you'd feel strongly, but it's also likely that passion has coloured your viewpoint.

That's normal and it's human. That said, a healthy, well-adjusted human will reach a point where they realise that it's just not worth the effort. I have no reason to think otherwise of you, so I hope you can take my advice in the good spirit it's given and just let this go. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User "Assertive Trekkie"

this user

User:Hirematviru — Fabricated/misrepresented sourcing and LLM use

	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.
Report: User:Hirematviru — Fabricated/misrepresented sourcing, suspected undisclosed LLM use I am reporting persistent sourcing misconduct by User:Hirematviru across multiple film and biography articles, following a talk page warning that was ignored. Summary of issue I have found that user's edits show a repeated pattern of citing sources that do not support — and in some cases are entirely unrelated to — the claims attached to them. This includes generic/irrelevant sources ( such a raw event calendar, review articles not related to topic being discussed) and sources describing different films/directors than the one being edited. This pattern and also the confidence user shows, specific-sounding prose that outpaces the cited source, suggests unverified LLM-generated content passed off as sourced fact. Sept 21 (2025 film) – producer claim — Adds a producer credit; cited source makes no mention of this person. Sept 21 (2025 film) – Cannes claim — Cites Cannes Film Festival inclusion under "Screenplay"; source is a general festival event calendar with no mention of the film at all. The Huntsman (2026) – director claim — Cites director info; source describes a completely different film and director, apparently matched only on the word "Huntsman." The Huntsman (2026) – release/VOD claim — Cites release and VOD dates; source consists of review articles with no release/VOD information. Felicia Kingsley – biographical claims — Multiple sources added that do not support the corresponding text, extending the same pattern to a biography article. also: The Huntsman (2026) – WP:PLOTVIO removal — A separate edit by this user was removed by another editor as a plot-detail copyright violation (WP:PLOTVIO), indicating a broader pattern of policy non-compliance beyond sourcing. and they also got blocks for different reasons: Partial block for disruption at SPI Partial block from certain article pages for BLP violations The user was warned on their talk page about this exact pattern and has continued the behavior, including [describe follow-up edit dates if after warning]. Beyond sourcing, the user has also responded with hostility and aggression in multiple cases.

Morris (talk with this worm) 00:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, do you think you could change these diffs to be the diffs of these things being posted rather than the diffs of you removing them? Morwen (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah, sorry. forgot that. Editing right away. Morris (talk with this worm) 00:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't report AI edits with an AI written response. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I just did not have time enough for this. Apart from that there is nothing wrong with the report, it clearly explain everything you need to know. Morris (talk with this worm) 00:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not correct, please see WP:AITALK and WP:LLMCOMM.

Please don't use AI on Wikipedia, if you don't have time to make a proper report, it's best to leave it for another editor - especially when it's not urgent (they stopped editing well over 24hrs ago).

If you'd waited a little longer and read through the previous (extensive) discussions with administrators and also looked through their edit history, you'd hopefully have realised that this editor hasn't caused any further disruption following their block - you'd also probably have had time to see my reply. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I did my mistake by using AI and I have already disclosed the reason. Also I dont use AI on Wikipedia, this was just a single case. Morris (talk with this worm) 01:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that this report was made shortly after I pointed out that Hirematviru has already been blocked from mainspace for AI use, hallucinated references and general disruptive editing. They've not made any edits since then, beyond an ill-advised appeal (declined) and a couple of User Talk page posts.

Since administrators have already taken appropriate action and all the edits in question are from before the mainspace block, I don't think there's anything further to do here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. This was made before that. I have been keeping eye on him for long time after seeing the SPI notice. I am also the one who removed his fake citations that was overlooked by others. @Sarsenet hid (a good decision probably) the report because I used LLM to write it but it has every detail you need to know. Morris (talk with this worm) 01:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean apart from small detail of the diffs not snowing that the user added the disputed content. Morwen (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, what actions do you want the admins to take? They're already blocked from editing articles in mainspace, you're aware of this since you've linked to it in your report. Admins were already aware of problems with sourcing and AI-use as confirmed here, are you saying that you feel the admins made the wrong decision in only blocking from mainspace? The report doesn't really explain why you've reported them after they've already been blocked so I'm struggling to understand why you've brought this to ANI.

TBH I wasn't expecting you to take them to ANI at all, since you'd just left a post saying that you were giving them a "last warning" around 20-30mins before generating this report. . In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

When I posted that “Last Warning,” it was because of the previous edits I had removed. However, this morning, just after posting it, I came across multiple other issues. Because of this, and because of another incident where they were somewhat aggressive toward me, I felt I had no option but to bring this case here. I do not understand why you are so tense about doing something like this. You are not their sock puppet; you are a well-established editor with 8,000+ edits. As for what I want, it is probably an outright ban from English Wikipedia, because they clearly lack English-speaking ability and are clearly disrupting Wikipedia. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

They have not continued to disrupt things after the block placed, and their English is understandable. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 02:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think I'm their sockpuppet, I didn't think that was in question but I'm happy you've cleared it up anyway.

Blocks are placed to prevent disruption - they're not punishment and should never be used as such. If a block has been placed and it's been sufficient to prevent further disruption, any further sanction would only be a form of punishment. Blocks only need upgrading if they've failed to protect Wikipedia - this one has done its job so far.

Our blocking policy explicitly tells us this: Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct... In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate.

Similarly, WP:BLOCKP explains that Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

There is no present disruptive behaviour and no imminent or continuing damage/disruption. Ergo, the mainspace block is currently working. If that changes, we'll deal with it as appropriate.

I think I've said enough in this thread already so, unless I'm pinged, I'll leave this for admins/other editors to address should any further points be raised. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thats really a good detailed WP page. Thanks. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Snowflake91

I believe this user could use an Administrator's reminder to be slightly more civil in their comments to other editors. I have marked the rather rude language in caps. For a serious editor, he also seems to have an issue with using proper punctuation when writing comments.

User contributions for Snowflake91:

• Bullshit --- 13:49, 1 July 2026 Žan Karničnik reverted mess, everything was correct the way it was, do not add BULLSHIT numbers from transfermarkt and use NZS numbers, and do not remove notes about cups and UEFA caps as this is standard formatting
• Crap --- 08:46, 27 June 2026 Chelsea F.C. restored as the quality was CRAP, upload a normal .svg version not this blurry stuff thank Tag: Manual revert
• Crap --- 00:57, 8 June 2026 Andraž Šporar stop with your CRAP formatting and merging the cells across all articles, use Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#International or don't edit at all thank Tag: Manual revert
• How the hell --- 02:15, 16 May 2026 Slovenia men's national basketball team HOW THE HELL is fourth place a medal, do not edit Wikipedia if you have zero common sense
• Brainless --- 02:04, 16 May 2026 Peter Stojanović stop with BRAINLESS edits, this is not even the same person
• Use some brains --- 02:00, 6 May 2026 Maribor Generals USE SOME BRAINS and dont just blindly add completely wrong "suggested links"
• Crap --- 03:02, 5 May 2026 PFC Levski Sofia unsourced and CRAP english

Using a simple search funcion, I have checked comments for 3,000 of his most recent edits. Not ONCE does he use words like 'please', 'thank you', or 'thanks' when addressing other editors. Just a thought....

Also, he seems to have unilaterally reverted someone's work (an overview in the form of a table) which I (and I'm sure many others) would find to be good and useful to have on that page. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_UEFA_club_competition_winners&diff=1356530517&oldid=1356521208

NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@NoWikiNoLife, you need to notify editors when you start discussions about them. Please see the notices at the top of this page. I have left the notification for Snowflake91 on your behalf on this occaision; however, please ensure you notify editors in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 03:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I left it on his user page instead of his talk page by mistake. I have deleted it now. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue regarding the table is a content dispute. I can see no evidence of any attempt to discuss it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but that's probably because there was already an ongoing one for a very similar (almost identical) table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_UEFA_club_competition_winners#Subsection_of_Winners_by_Year . NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That discussion dates back to 2022. It clearly isn't 'ongoing', despite you adding a comment to it after starting this thread. And regardless, this is a dispute over content, not a behavioural issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that I guess the user who made that table (Mpjmcevoybeta) did not start a new thread because he probably saw the one from 2022. I only left a comment today because I did not think of checking the talk page for a potential discussion before. I will open a new thread now. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It should probably be noted here that NoWikiNoLife and Snowflake91 have past history on WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a little hard to tell since they've linked directly to the articles and not the edits themselves, but Snowflake91's edit summaries can be very hostile in tone if they're unhappy with a particular edit.

These are diffs for edit summaries that were left over the past two months after reverting different newbie editors, none were treated civilly or had any sort of explanation or warning given on their Talk page, they were just bitten:

• use some brains and dont just blindly add completely wrong "suggested links"
• stop with brainless edits, this is not even the same person
• how the hell is fourth place a medal, do not edit Wikipedia if you have zero common sense

I haven't looked into the history been these two editors, but Snowflake91 really needs to dial this aggressiveness back. A lot. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that Snowflake91 has continued editing without acknowledging this. The edit summaries here are an example of the WP:POOR issue that causes Wikipedia to bleed would-be editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

A few dozen edits at that. I'm going to post a small nudge to see if it helps raise them for the torpor of a case of ANI flu. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Tsionbelayneh competency concern

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

Can I get someone to evaluate for a WP:CIR block on this user and perhaps steer him to a mentorship? They're a new and highly active user, and the majority of their edits are bad -- they claim to be fixing grammar but leave the material a mess, they ignore WP:ENGVAR, the take properly-formatted dates and misformat them, etc. Not 100% of their edits are bad, but they are wasting more of other editors' time than the benefit they are providing. They've received multiple warnings regarding problems, and have acknowledged some of those warnings, but the problems continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs) 04:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Replying to every single warning with "ok" doesn't raise my hopes that they'll be able to engage properly with a mentor - you were thinking of a mainspace block? It'd be a whole lot easier to judge their abilities if they replied with more than the same two letters every time. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hhokay, so they're making newcomer copyedits and I'm getting the impression that they're still learning English grammar. They've not quite got the hang of it, which results in changes like this one. They're making one edit every few minutes, with maybe two in five needing reversion, one being an improvement and the other two being neither better nor worse than the original (essentially pointless). There are also basic errors like removing wikilinks and copy-editing quotations.

If I'm correct about their learning English, then a mentor won't really help matters. It would be great if they stopped editing to talk to us properly, so we can figure this out. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm finding much more than one in five needing revision or correction. I've fixed over 50 of them so far (and I'm not the only one doing so)... things like changing the name of an organization because they feel it's redundant, or putting a quote mark instead of a space after a period, or removing the "the" before the Marvel Cinematic Universe while also removing the space after a comma, or combining "role at" into one word and randomly changing a "the" to a "he". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ugh you're right, I've just spent the time since my last message going through them too and I was overly optimistic. The more recent ones didn't seem so bad, but the further down I got the clearer it became that they're changing words without fully understanding the context behind them. I've got many more examples too, but you've given plenty so I won't swamp the discussion by adding more. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It may be that they have gotten a bit better -- I don't think I saw them messing with date formats after I made that specific note. I'm not sure what method they're using to find things to edit, as the topics are all over the place (but they do return to some articles.) Getting them to recognize what they understand and what they don't may be tricky, that is a normal human blind spot. Anyway, they are continuing to edit, despite warning. Can we block them to force them here? (I just undid a bunch of changes right in a row, mostly random capitalization changes; I'm beginning to think someone is just trying to hit an edit count requirement.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Primefac blocked them from articlespace about a half hour ago. That seems to be the right solution; they can still make edit requests or possibly explain to us what the situation is, though I'm not terribly optimistic. I never really get this whole thing; trying to write an encyclopedia in a language I barely speak sounds like an absolute nightmare scenario and my mind is still blown that people want to do this voluntarily. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

All their edits were tagged with "Newcomer Task copyedit" then the same handful of edit summaries according to the type of edit.

I'm not overly familiar with newcomer tasks, but I suspect that they've been going with whatever was suggested by the system - this page explains that the software (LanguageTool) will make a suggestion for a new editor to review. They then choose whether to publish, alter or disregard the suggestion.

So in this case, LanguageTool suggested an edit, they published the edits but didn't have the understand that the tool isn't perfect and will alter quotes, remove wikilinks & formatting, etc. Since they don't appear to have the knowledge/ability to properly review the suggestions, we ended up with whatever the tool spat out with little to no human review. That would also explain the speed at which they were going, why some edits were ok and others were completely wrong, as well as the other strange signs that we know are inherent with the tool (e.g. removal of wikilinks, alteration of quotes and "ok" being their only communication). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW The page I've linked explains it further (emphasis added):

When using LanguageTool for Wikipedia articles we face different challenges:

• A Wikipedia article contains not only plain text but also other elements such as tables, infoboxes, references etc which we probably dont want spell-check.
• A Wikipedia article contains content (text, links, etc) that is transcluded from, e.g., templates. Fixing potential copyedits in this case is not recommended as i) it would have to be done in the template and not in the article itself; and ii) will also affect the content in other articles.
• A Wikipedia article contains many text elements which might appear as copyedits but are in fact correct, such as in quotes, uncommon entity names and should thus not be highlighted as copyedits.

Basically, the tool can't tell the difference between a quote, a link, a title/name, all things that @NatGertler and I have seen in the history.

Anyway, I thought I'd better add this as an explanation so we understand why this happened and whether this editor might be productive in the future.

I think they would do much better editing a Wikipedia in their first language, although I'm not sure which one that might be. It's always possible that they're a native English speaker, although that would raise many, many questions. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW I changed my comment after a couple of minutes to say two out of five needed reverting, once I started to realise the extent of the problem - it must have crossed with you writing your reply, apologies! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

gee, who could have predicted that there might be unintended consequences to giving people not necessarily experienced in copyediting a gamified feature encouraging them to pump out edits fast

it's hard to fault them, really, for doing exactly what they are being encouraged to do Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup, you're not the first person who had concerns about the newcomer tasks! I had no idea there was so much automation until I looked it up earlier - it was a bit of a shock TBH. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 23:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Primefac gave them a mainspace-indef'ed block. DMacks (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, got about halfway down their talk page before clicking the buttons; didn't see there was a thread here but the disruption was clearly ongoing. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

User:AAAUSTRALIAAA

Disruptive, unexplained editing by ~2026-37773-17

~2026-37773-17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed sourced content on Amtrak Airo and Siemens Charger without explanation, despite warnings now about not using an edit summary and disruptive editing. 4300streetcar (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I blocked them for 72 hours for disruptive editing. Any admin is free to modify the block if they think I was too harsh or if they think this doesn't go far enough. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Long-term disruption at University of Science and Technology (Yemen)

• University of Science and Technology (Yemen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 2022, University of Science and Technology (Yemen) has seen a number of new accounts (some blocked) insisting that the university is located in a city other than what the article sources (and the university’s own website) state. Based on the similar spellings and identical editing I’m confident these accounts are all the same user.

Alwardamin has already identified themselves as an employee of the university. They’ve ignored requests to discuss/provide sources/gain consensus and the latest account Dr. Aiman Alhadhrami is edit-warring again (diff).

Can these three active accounts be blocked and the article placed under long-term ECP?

Celjski Grad (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Having read the article and the talk page, if I understand rightly, what he's saying is that because of the Yemeni civil war there are now two groups of people calling themselves the University of Science and Technology (Yemen) - one faction has moved to Aden and appears to be aligned with the internationally recognised government, but another has remained in Houthi-controlled Sanaa. This one that has remained in Sanaa has its own website that the user has kept trying to substitute in. The specific edits are bad and have been correctly reverted; but I do wonder if there's not some RS out there that talks about this dispute that we could use. Morwen (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

there are now two groups of people calling themselves the University of Science and Technology (Yemen) - one faction has moved to Aden and appears to be aligned with the internationally recognised government, but another has remained in Houthi-controlled Sanaa.

That's exactly what I thought it might be too. The brief research I did before opening this didn't turn up anything. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Content Dispute on Template:IPhone supported OS release

• Template:IPhone supported OS release (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get an uninvolved admin to take a look at the current content dispute at Template:IPhone supported OS release?

I have attempted to clean up the table to group together families, but have been repeatedly reverted by YannickFran []. During the discussion with them, they continue to revert to their preferred version as noted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IPhone_supported_OS_release&diff=prev&oldid=1362211753) with the Edit Summary of "Revert Vandalism."

I would move the current discussion to the project page, however, if the discussion doesn't go YannickFran's way, I have a feeling that they would just revert again. ~2026-33592-55 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-33592-55, administrators cannot help with content disputes - those need to follow the usual dispute resolution processes. The notice here explains the page is for chronic, long term behavioural problems - in this case, you just want a page to look the way you want it to.

I can see that you were edit warring to force your preferred edit into the page, and were consequently taken to the edit warring noticeboard - the page was then protected to stop you from warring further and force you to talk properly in the right location.

You've been asked a few times to go to the template Talk page and form a consensus with other editors, yet you've still not done this.

Admins won't remove the page protection because you are forum shopping to get your own way.

I'd like you to please read these two pages before you do anything else: WP:BRD, WP:BRIE.

After you've read them, please talk to the other editor on the article/template Talk page so everyone can clearly see it, then form a consensus that's based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Your only argument so far is personal preference, which doesn't hold much water on Wikipedia. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

In addition, please note that admins do not adjuciate content disputes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Verbal harassment