Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Potential mass improper AfC acceptances

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

---

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.

SafariScribe AfC Acceptance Times (ten most recent)

Nigerian Entertainment			Other
Draft Name	Submit-to-Accept Time	Draft Creator	Draft Name	Submit-to-Accept Time	Draft Creator
King Kaly	<1 min.	Single-purpose TA	David D. Gilmore	3 hr. 3 min.	Multiple-interest TA
Batife Bentley	49 min.	Established editor	Carl Rhodes	3 m. 12 d.	Mulitple-interest TA
SIINKO	7 min.	Single-purpose TA	Band Folia	3 m. 13 d.	OKA editor
Teemeeysax	3 min.	Single-purpose TA	List of awards and nominations received by Katseye	13 h. 59 min.	Established editor
Hurlarstringz	1 h. 24 min.	Single-purpose account	1976 Nobel Peace Prize	1 h. 48 min.	Sockpuppet
Isaac Bholu	2 min.	Single-purpose TA	Wesley Cornelious McClure	1 h. 7 min.	New editor
Fransax	1 min.	Single-purpose TA	BlackSky Technology Inc.	3 m. 14 d.	Declared paid editor
Abidemi Sax	<1 min.	Single-purpose TA	Alistipes communis	3 h. 57 min.	New editor
Euphoria360 Media	2 min.	Single-purpose TA	Mini C-arm	3 h. 36 min.	New editor
Miichkel	1 min.	Single-purpose TA	Ameerh Naran	3 min.	Single-purpose TA
Notes

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.

Article analysis

King Kaly

Citation 1 doesn't support "Isemin was born in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria", citation 5 doesn't support "he was also named Best TikTok Battle Host by TikTok UK", and citation 7 doesn't support "named him among twenty Nigerian TikTok influencers it described as driving a new era of digital power in Nigeria."

Teemeeysax

Citation 2 doesn't support "He has also performed at events such as Flytime Fest and international stages", citation 4 doesn't support "his playing is characterised by expressive phrasing and a "vocal-like" approach to the saxophone", and citation 4 doesn't support "he is regarded as part of a new generation of Nigerian instrumentalists contributing to the evolution of Afrobeat.

Isaac Bholu

Citation 4 does not support "He has been compared to Italian internet personality Khaby Lame", and citation 5 does not support "earning comparisons to other global creators who use non-verbal humour to communicate ideas".

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)

Additional AfC accept data

2026 AfC accepts by submission-to-acceptance time

Type	Jan			Feb			Mar			Apr			May			Jun
	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median
All accepts	15	17 d 10 h	21 d 23 h	6	5 d 17 h	4 d 05 h	6	10 d 23 h	4 d 04 h	13	19 d 10 h	1 h 18 m	2	1 h 06 m	1 h 06 m	17	24 d 16 h	55 m
Nigeria accepts	3	8 d 17 h	0 m	4	8 d 04 h	7 d 06 h	2	3 m	3 m	1	1 m	1 m	1	2 m	2 m	4	12 m	0 m
Biography accepts	9	15 d 17 h	21 d 09 h	4	2 d 02 h	19 h 56 m	2	3 m	3 m	7	15 d 11 h	1 h 18 m	1	2 m	2 m	7	14 d 21 h	49 m

2025 AfC accepts by submission-to-acceptance time

Type	Jan			Feb			Mar			Apr			May			Jun			Jul			Aug			Sep			Oct			Nov			Dec
	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median
All accepts	142	9 d 02 h	4 h 38 m	49	23 d 07 h	1 d 04 h	65	54 d 03 h	71 d 17 h	3	12 d 02 h	2 d 03 h	44	46 d 17 h	17 d 16 h	64	19 d 01 h	11 h 51 m	7	2 d 11 h	1 h 46 m	2	1 d 00 h	1 d 00 h	50	18 d 10 h	5 h 41 m	69	11 d 14 h	14 h 01 m	128	14 d 21 h	9 h 50 m	19	11 d 00 h	14 d 05 h
Nigeria accepts	55	13 h 52 m	2 h 00 m	6	2 d 09 h	1 d 19 h	3	12 h 48 m	16 h 47 m	1	34 d 03 h	34 d 03 h	5	23 d 17 h	15 d 14 h	1	1 h 09 m	1 h 09 m	0	—	—	2	1 d 00 h	1 d 00 h	3	19 d 16 h	19 d 23 h	8	6 d 05 h	1 d 00 h	5	30 d 14 h	20 d 09 h	5	4 d 12 h	1 m
Biography accepts	96	8 d 13 h	3 h 32 m	22	14 d 16 h	1 d 03 h	37	46 d 15 h	64 d 05 h	0	—	—	23	58 d 12 h	89 d 14 h	22	24 d 10 h	2 d 22 h	1	36 m	36 m	1	1 d 11 h	1 d 11 h	27	15 d 09 h	5 h 04 m	31	17 d 04 h	15 h 55 m	55	18 d 18 h	23 h 10 m	11	11 d 15 h	14 d 05 h

2024 AfC accepts by submission-to-acceptance time

Type	Apr			May			Jun			Jul			Aug			Sep			Oct			Nov			Dec
	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median	#	Avg	Median
All accepts	17	9 d 14 h	17 h 02 m	9	21 h 50 m	3 h 38 m	94	31 d 04 h	1 d 09 h	181	23 d 05 h	10 h 26 m	172	34 d 19 h	4 d 20 h	227	26 d 07 h	14 h 44 m	227	8 d 11 h	10 h 13 m	110	12 d 14 h	10 h 59 m	80	18 d 06 h	2 d 08 h
Nigeria accepts	1	2 d 03 h	2 d 03 h	1	2 d 11 h	2 d 11 h	3	10 d 06 h	1 d 22 h	11	4 d 16 h	9 h 42 m	7	7 d 11 h	3 h 46 m	13	16 h 01 m	1 h 12 m	10	21 h 35 m	10 h 09 m	10	19 h 05 m	10 h 18 m	6	3 d 22 h	13 h 00 m
Biography accepts	12	13 d 03 h	11 h 56 m	3	22 h 12 m	3 h 46 m	53	45 d 10 h	21 d 05 h	71	31 d 19 h	4 d 18 h	72	39 d 09 h	7 d 12 h	87	41 d 01 h	21 d 21 h	54	14 d 07 h	3 d 14 h	45	14 d 23 h	13 h 12 m	28	24 d 05 h	12 d 19 h

See Quarry:query/106800 for the full data. This may miss some Nigerian articles, as not all are in WikiProject Nigeria. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I gotta learn how to use Quarry haha, I spent about 45 minutes on the table above. InfernoHues (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That median of less than a minute for approvals in 2026 tells quite the story. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

They use a script to log how long it takes them to review articles: User:SafariScribe/AfC time log. Looks like it almost never takes more than a minute. I'm not a article reviewer, but that seems odd. InfernoHues (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I review articles as part of AFC. I don't see how an editor could determine if the sources in an article demonstrate that either WP:GNG or one of the specific notability guidelines are met in less than a minute. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the script is broken. It records them declining articles seconds after opening them - in one case, 0.375 seconds after doing so. I don't think that's possible even if they are pressing "decline" as soon they open the page, so I would suggest ignoring that data. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging the script creator @JJPMaster in case they have any insight. InfernoHues (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@BilledMammal, @InfernoHues, and @TarnishedPath: The script is generally reliable. Sometimes, pages actually can be declined seconds after opening them, if they clearly violate policy (cf. my log). Whether that is the case with SafariScribe's drafts is not a question I am equipped to answer. It is also worth noting that at least some of those cases may have been affected by the user opening another page, since the timer does not yet persist across pages; I am working on fixing that. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it can be very quick and easy to decline a draft, sometimes in seconds as you say (blank, non-English, unreferenced, pure vandalism, etc.). But to accept a draft cannot be done in seconds, or usually even just a few minutes. You need to read through it, check the sources, make sure it's not a copyvio or translation, look for signs of LLM use, see that there isn't an existing article on the same or very similar topic, and so on. If you can do all that in five minutes, it's either a very clear-cut case, or you got lucky, or both. I'd challenge anyone to manage even three sub-5 min acceptances in a row. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Those seem quite round values? Not to impose a burden on those doing statistics, but could months be presented as "mo" and minutes be presented as "min" consistently to reduce potential confusion? CMD (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't use months in mine; every m is minutes. I prefer to keep it that way to avoid making the tables wider than they already are.

Those seem quite round values? I rounded them to make them easier to read. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. CMD (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been going on for a while. The article Jubril Arogundade (about a Nigerian businessman) was approved in October 2025 in just two minutes after it was created. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As pointed out above, it also makes this discussion about SafariScribe's nomination for deletion of LGBTQ+ African articles relevant. Unclear if it was ever moved to the correct noticeboard to be continued, so leaving it here. jolielover♥talk 04:34, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there were two discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

As per above discussion, anyone might be interested in these discussions.

1) Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative

2) Improved Sexual Health and Rights Advocacy Initiative and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Improved Sexual Health and Rights Advocacy Initiative

3) Douglas Kendyson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Kendyson

4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Love (they closed this). Obinna Tony (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to note, they withdrew from the last one which directly led to it being closed. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion at WT:LGBTQ+. I also had some follow-up discussion with Obinna Tony on their user talk page, including some coaching about how to handle situation. I would have advised bringing the LGBTQ+ deletion issue to ANI at the point that Obinna Tony mistakenly posted it to the talk page, and would have provided more guidance on providing diffs and evidence, but I think the issues raised there warrant some consideration as part of a broader assessment of SafariScribe's behavior. In the discussion at WT:LGBTQ+, SafariScribe insulted and questioned the motives of editors. Some of these statements are rather incoherent but were read as hostile to LBGTQ+ people (you people, living the truth). At AFD, SafariScribe's responses to me are peppered with insults about my competence. rather than simply engaging with the substance of my arguments. Again, I would not have brought my experiences to ANI but do find them relevant here. In fairness to SafariSribe, they have been persuaded in some of the AFDs to withdraw the nomination or support a merger rather than deletion. A generous read of the Nigerian LGBTQ+ AFDs is that they were hastily nominated without properly considering alternatives. No editor is perfectly consistent in their application of policies and guidelines, but the AFC approval data alone is damning and increases my index of suspicion for a more sinister anti-LGBTQ+ motivation behind the recent AFD nominations. SafariScriber purports to be an expert in Nigerian topics and all things AFC and AFD. The unevenness in their decision making is striking. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Especially given some of the effort that they went to in order to delete them... whilst passing stuff like Isaac Bholu, a comedian whose main claim to fame appears to be taking part in an Open Mic night? Black Kite (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes! They went through that because of the discussions after that. And also accusing Douglas Kendyson news articles of being paid promo and some articles being interview while King Kaly has 100% of them. Meanwhile, Douglas Kendyson is the owner of a notable company selar and an “out gay man” while King Kaly is just a TikToker and probably paid for those WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA Obinna Tony (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Archive 8#User:Dahproman for some added context around the King Kaly article. It's previously been deleted as the work of LLM. TarnishedPath^talk 06:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested: User talk:SafariScribe#h-Notes about recent changes-20260615180000 Obinna Tony (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I may have used a machine to paraphrase or rephrase. In this case, it's acceptable. What is this supposed to mean? Did you or did you not? What "machine"? Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Obinna Tony isnt the one who said that. InfernoHues (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

...I didn't say they were? It's from the discussion that they linked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean it looks like you were asking them those questions. My bad. InfernoHues (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't speak to any COI but I have noticed a nontrivial amount of clearly AI-generated articles being approved by them. That said, they're hardly the only ones doing this; not sure it's malicious, there are very specific things you need to look for and they've changed a lot since 2025. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

SafariScribe and myself often overlapped on reviewing. I had concerns in the past of exceedingly prolific reviewing with some very quick accepts. I (used to) be a prolific reviewer but the quantity and speed of SafariScribe's surprised me. We also had Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_58#Rechecking_User:SafariScribe's_reviews last year, where some problematic and fast reviewers were highlighted. qcne (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I hope SafariScribe responds; they have not edited since the AN/I complaint was filed. The OP's analysis provides strong evidence of something hinky with these reviews, and the fact that SafariScribe added a notability tag to King Kaly only after marking it as reviewed and then being questioned about it is a red flag. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If no response is forthcoming, I think there's sufficient evidence of UPE and I will block. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence of UPE from a prolific reviewer? Has it occurred to anyone that it could be an overlap due to his fast acceptance rate? Let’s just assume good faith till he replies here, I think that’ll be better for us all. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

As noted by the block notice & type of block, he can appeal his block and partake in this discussion. I find no harm in performing this kind of block with the evidence above. He can very well still respond here and be unblocked. It's also odd he hasn't responded yet as he doesn't seem like the type to not edit for the period he's been away for. Potential case of ANI flu? jolielover♥talk 07:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You might be interested in this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_AfroLiterature/Team Obinna Tony (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone be interested in an online campaign? @Obinna Tony? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING It could be out of wiki canvassing since you both have been part of a team in a wiki contest. I could be wrong. Obinna Tony (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Obinna Tony, please always assume good faith. I have been following your conversations with SafariScribe through the AfD discussions and this whole thing now seems like an obsession; give it a rest please. BTW who canvassed you to this noticeboard? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I assumed good faith hence why I told everyone to check it out (you asked the clarification yourself). And I can’t be obsessed if the individual was the one who was on my articles first.

Who canvassed me? Definitely not an editor I have interacted with before Obinna Tony (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Obinna Tony, anyways, I wouldn’t want us to digress from the issue at hand. I’ll be waiting for SafariScribe to come online and give his 2 cents. Meanwhile, you don’t have to look for a connection between him and everyone and seems to defend him; there’s a lot of connection between him and I seeing that we’re both Nigerians and edit Nigerian topics together. If he replies, do well to ping me. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover, yes, I hadn’t read through, I didn’t understand the full scenario. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, pardon my irresponsibility of being off wiki; I am having an interview of students about 100 in number while helping a friend copy edit his assignment (a master degree stuff). I will have to read the above to understand what happened. Also, I saw I was blocked. I will address this shortly. Thank you. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, SafariScribe went three days without edits earlier this month and seven days without edits last month. So there is a (progressively decreasing) chance that they are not intentionally avoiding this. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough jolielover♥talk 13:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that we'll need to go through SafariScribe's AfC history; it appears they've been marking articles they've accepted as patrolled, which means there likely hasn't been another set of eyes on them. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I ran into this reviewer when I came across their NPP acceptance of Humaniti Montréal. I thought this was quite a poor AFC accept at the time, given that at the time of acceptance it did not appear to meet notability from the sources included, was quite promotional, and had clear prose and citation issues. At the time I thought this was just a bad accept, but given the evidence presented here it could point to a wider-ranging COI than just Nigeria articles, especially given the potential connection to a concerted effort to create Wikipedia articles for promotion purposes in that topic area around that time. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

An interim partial block?

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

---

It seems that Safari Scribe has a case of ANI flu. As an interim measure, can they be partially blocked from article space and draft space to enable them to respond here but not accept any more drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems very reasonable to me. Morwen (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I was inclined to indef for UPE, but I've gone with this approach. If another admin feels an indef is appropriate, I would not object. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say if they do not come with a convincing explanation we should default to indef. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If they don't provide a convincing explanation but instead admit fault and disclose everything to the community, then I would oppose an indef on WP:ROPE grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Good morning to you all and how are you doing? First and foremost, I apologise for my lateness to responding; I, sometimes, get stuck with few works which may limit me, maybe for that week or few days, from editing, or I will enter and leave. Again, replying here, I had to read the complaints brought about me and here are my declarations. I accept humbly the accusations made on me; I am guilty of them all and apologise, especially for using the AFC and NPP tools improperly to accept drafts and even mark them as reviewed when they have low sources that at the end of the day may not meet WP:GNG. It is my bad and I am remorseful about it. Why? It is because I often think that accepting at least some Nigerian articles that has at least two to three good sources are better for the development of the Nigerian project, and having in mind that even when they meet no notability at the end of the day, it goes to WP:AFD. This is clearly a wicked option to the Wikipedia community and that I had just realised. Fair enough, the discussions about my involvement with LGBTQ stuffs is not true because I have no idea of negativity towards any group. Sounding harsh was sort of a convincing spirit that one should abandon sentiments of a belief and move towards the project's goal. Since those offended a lot, I am sorry. The AFD nominations were all validly done. If you ask why I had to nominate at a roll, it was because I had a contest which I am participating in, and one of the editors, probably to me, has been creating articles that fall short of notability, hence my nomination; it isn't from any intent to attack any particular group. I strongly reject any idea of being involved in WP:UPE. I had to read UPE i.e. undisclosed paid edit, and I say again: I have never edited this Wikipedia for edit. I try as much as possible to participate in contests at Meta Wikimedia to gain a little money for my upkeep. Although I have work—I am studying at the university. I want to appeal for my gross (high) acceptance rate which often makes me accept even drafts that meet no/less of GNG. I have had complaints earlier about that, and I am trying. However it seems I am not trying enough and that is my irresponsibility. I always re-load the new page feed, that is why often I clash with some editors and that's why I get across new pages often. Notwithstanding I, sometimes, go back to drafts of past three months, but I do that when I feel like clearing the log. The King Kaly draft which I accepted was my stupid fault. I do that to Nigerian articles I often think didn't fail directly, e.g. blank, no sources, e.t.c. I didn't know if I should revert the acceptance, so I tagged it, hoping to nominate it for AFD or someone may. In that time, I acted stupidly and I apologise for it. But I say again, I have never accepted any draft or anything herein for money. Nigeria is poor but that doesn't mean I will beg for money for fraud. For marking articles as reviewed, I seldomely do that but these few days or weeks, I summoned courage to easily mark them as patrolled that it may not be a burden at NPP since I didn't participate in the review contest. To all of you, thank you. I accept I know nothing and know that I know nothing and that is true life. I have a good will for Wikipedia, and even out of my misfortunes, I cannot at least betray if for UPE. Those who has felt bad after having an encounter with me, I had no intention of insulting you especially on any idea, wiki policy, etc. I have resolved to review drafts on a slow pace and to stop marking as reviewed, some draft which may eventually land in AFD since it is a waste of time to the community. I still want to create articles, review AFC drafts, and even NPP but if it will take few weeks to be implemented, no problem; the decision is on you all and my own pleasing. I am remorseful for all, I am sorry, and I apologise.SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Safari, but I'm not convinced by this. Your explanation addresses why you accept Nigerian drafts that are below our standards, but starting in December 2025 you began accepting Nigerian drafts minutes after they were submitted while your submission-to-acceptance time of other drafts remained constant. Your explanation does not address this, and the only explanation I am seeing is that someone is asking you, off-wiki, to accept them.

  If there is a different explanation, then please provide it. If there is not a different explanation, then please come clean to the community. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, if you are not convinced, I won't kill myself. Or do I accept to say I have received money when I didn't and I will never? SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are possible explanations other than WP:UPE, such as WP:MEAT and WP:COI, though absent an explanation UPE does seem the most likely.

  Regardless, your explanation hasn't addressed the timing aspect at all, and I hope you will revise your explanation to try to do so - we haven't interacted recently but I think we had some positive interactions years ago, and I don't want to see your Wikipedia career end here. I'm not asking you to lie about anything, just tell the whole truth - explain how you are coming across these Nigerian articles so soon after they are submitted. BilledMammal (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, no I don't think my Wikipedia career should end here because I am telling everything I know. There's no COI, MEAT, or anything called UPE. I didn't notice anything concerning accepting, particularly, Nigerian drafts from December 2025. I review all article, I mean, drafts, and I accept and decline as well, although, like I said in my earlier testament, I give less hand for Nigerian-related drafts. That aside and especially for marking as reviewed, I had in mind that any other gross review are often handled by some other editors, who specifically work with drafts newly accepted. Whenever I accept, I bear in mind that an upper hand is waiting already somewhere to see that list and work on them more. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  The fact you purposely let Nigerian-topic drafts through on lesser criteria shows a gross lack of judgement and has caused real harm to the broader reputation of Nigerian editors. qcne (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qcne, I reviewed them [those articles] and not just passing no judgement on them. I have acted improperly but I wouldn't say I have caused bad reputation to Nigerian articles or editors or the wikiproject at large. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @SafariScribe This demonstrates a continued lack of understanding of the seriousness of your failing. qcne (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I sometimes struggle a bit to understand exactly what you mean, Safari (eg. "give less hand for" is not an expression I'm familiar with, or "upper hand is waiting"), so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your comment, but it seems you're saying you thought it okay to apply lower standards to Nigeria-related drafts/articles because someone else would eventually run the proverbial ruler over them and take appropriate action (AfD etc.) if needed. To some extent that is true: as I've said also in this discussion, AfC can give borderline '50-50' drafts the benefit of the doubt and accept, as long as they aren't copyright or BLP violations. NPP is different IMO, because there the reviewer is that 'someone else', acting as the final quality control, and should be more diligent. (I'm not sure, however, whether there is evidence of you doing this at NPP as well.) But to systematically do that in one topic area which you're keen to promote is not okay: when you take on the role of a reviewer, you're expected to act without bias to the best of your abilities, and to purposely do otherwise betrays the trust placed in you by the community. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @DoubleGrazing, I understand. All actions come with a purpose, and my purpose for marking those drafts as reviewed is my qualms with systemic bias. Since this purpose is considered wrong, I declare for a formal de-sysop of my NPP rights. That is a way of showing remorse for my irresponsibility. And ask that I shall return "good". SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's.. that's not how this works, @SafariScribe. You can't purposely pervert the AfC process, get found out, apologise and voluntarily give up the perms (which have already been removed from you!) and say that is evidence of your remorse. The more you write here the stronger my conviction that don't actually understand what you did was wrong, and only a block will prevent future disruption to the project. qcne (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qcne, I did not purposely pervert anything. Blocks are punitive and if you argue that it is preventive in this case, then, you are wrong. I give up the perms though it has already been taken from me. When the community's confidence in me is restored, maybe I can get it again. I reply only those who asked me a question. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I am arguing that a block is preventative here because your own explanation indicates you approved Nigerian drafts to try and combat systemic bias, which confirms that this was a purposeful perversion of AfC/NPP norms.

  Your subsequent replies still do not show that you understand the seriousness of biased reviewing, accepting weak drafts, marking pages as reviewed, and assuming that other editors would later perform the real quality control.

  A block would therefore be preventative to further damage to the project. qcne (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe those are Nigerian English/Nigerian pidgin expressions. InfernoHues (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why did you mention suicide? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  I interpreted it as 'I won't cry about it'. But, er, not a great choice of words. jolielover♥talk 15:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  If it is intended as that, it's a bit tasteless Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  “I won’t kill myself” is a Nigerian English phrase to mean, “I will prioritize my mental health.” Obinna Tony (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  SafariScribe, I may be bias but I think you’re a net positive when it comes to Nigerian topics and one of the best editors Nigeria has in the English Wikipedia. Please, I wouldn’t want to lose you for anything. There has been issues of your speed in the past and I am here to make a suggestion: Revoke NPP and AfC rights. Focus on writing articles as you have always done. All I am saying is, just leave the reviewing work for others. Is this something you’re willing to do?

  Also, I remember there was an editor here who also accepted articles from sock puppets and paid editors due to their fast acceptance rate, no one crucified them for it. It’s one of the things that happens in AfC. For acceptance of articles that are subpar, I mean, AFC is supposed to accept articles with 50% chance of survival in AfD (unless the rules has changed now). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Reading Beans, if that

  the case, I agree that they revoke my NPP and AfC rights while I continue creating only articles. But I still love AFC reviewing.

  i SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  The change in Dec 2025, as pointed out by BM above, does require some explanation. Perhaps there is some explanation? TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, I didn't notice any change whatsoever regarding anything that began happening in December 2025. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @SafariScribe have a look at the data which BilledMammal provided above in tables just under the section heading 'Additional AfC accept data'. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I saw the table when reading the complaints but I didn't understand how it works. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  The tables are about submission-to-acceptance time. For example, Abidemi Sax. It was created at 10:23am UTC on January 1st, 2026. Then, four minutes later at 10:27am UTC, the creator of the article submitted it for AfC review. Then, seconds later, you approved it. Since Abidemi Sax is a WikiProject Nigeria article, it is counted in the table under Nigerian articles. I hope you are following to this point.

  For now, lets move on to the median time. For August 2025, you reviewed 2 articles that are a part of WikiProject Nigeria and took a median time of 1 day after submission to approve an article, which lines up well with you non-WikiProject Nigeria reviews. Additional months past August show fluctuations, but nothing problematic: September 2025's median from 3 articles being nearly 20 days; October 2025's median from 8 articles being 1 day; and November 2025's median for 5 articles being nearly 20.5 days. And then comes December 2025, where the median for WikiProject Nigeria articles drops to 1 minute. With 5 approved articles, than means that you approved at least 3 of them that month in less than 120 seconds from submission. January 2026's median for 3 articles? 0 minutes. February 2026 returns to normal with a median of just over 7 days for 4 articles. And then from March to now: March had a median of 3 minutes for 2 article; April had 1 article reviewed in 1 minute; May had 1 article reviewed in 2 minutes; and June had 4 articles reviewed for a median of 0 minutes again. So, SafariScribe, can you explain your reviews for Nigerian articles since December 2025? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V, I find it difficult to recall exactly what you meant. But to answer your question, I review Nigerian articles like I review others since December 2025. I do not know about whatever change that have recurred. But if it is about fast reviews, I solicit to reviewing slowly. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is a clear pattern of you accepting drafts on Nigerian topics almost immediately (within minutes) after they are submitted for review. Can you explain that? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:28, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Voorts, I wonder if it is only Nigerian articles that I see in the feed, obviously not. I said earlier that I reload the new pages feed after any review at daily basis, and so, I get to new articles before many other reviewers. I decline obviously nonsensical Nigerian articles, and the same I did to other articles that are not Nigerian-related. I accept Nigerians draft only per WP:AFCSTANDARDS which advocates for a 50-50 chance of surviving AFD. I had been doing this not with an intention of distorting the project but with hope that it "might" survive AFD or not. This is neutrally done for all articles. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  That directly contradicts what you said previously in this thread. qcne (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qcne, I hope you read in context and not taking one's statement word by word. Thank you. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @SafariScribe I am reading this in context.

  You first explained the accepts by saying you thought accepting some Nigerian articles was better for the development of the Nigerian project, then you said you gave Nigerian-related drafts "less hand", then you said your purpose in quickly marking those drafts as reviewed related to your concerns about systemic bias.

  Your latest explanation says the opposite: that this was "neutrally done for all articles". Those positions are not able to be held at the same time. qcne (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @SafariScribe: I was going to ask almost the same question as voorts, but they beat me to it. My question was specifically on AfC drafts, though, not new articles at NPP. Drafts are sorted by ORES into broad categories, but that's not very reliable, and the relevant category here, Western Africa, covers 15+ countries. Is that how you find them, or do you have a better method? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @SafariScribe This is incredibly disappointing. I am not sure you realise the damage you have done to both the Wikipedia project and the reputation of AfC reviewers / NPPers. And it is now up to volunteer editors to clean up the mess you have purposely made.

  Obviously, you should not be permitted AfC and NPP rights again. But I do think further punishment further prevention ^{(EDIT at 13:36 UTC, I mistyped "prevention" as "punishment", thanks to User:ClaudineChionh for pointing this out)} is needed to prevent damage to the project.

  I'd support a block at this point. qcne (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qcne, please do not be angry, I was perhaps looking at that 50 percent rate of surviving AFD following my fast rate of decline. I still believe in NPP and especially AFC but don't get disappointed, I should not work at AFC and NPP, at least now, and will retract to creating articles until my head is clear. I ask you to have confidence in me. I will come back great. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, @SafariScribe, I have lost complete confidence in you. Why should we allow you to "come back great" after a gross betrayal of trust. qcne (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you ask why I had to nominate at a roll, it was because I had a contest which I am participating in (...) Just a suggestion here to mention which contest you were participating in.

  I strongly reject any idea of being involved in WP:UPE. I had to read UPE i.e. undisclosed paid edit, and I say again: I have never edited this Wikipedia for edit. (...) But I say again, I have never accepted any draft or anything herein for money. Nigeria is poor but that doesn't mean I will beg for money for fraud. For marking articles as reviewed, I seldomely do that but these few days or weeks, I summoned courage to easily mark them as patrolled that it may not be a burden at NPP since I didn't participate in the review contest. I believe you meant "for pay" at the end of the first sentence, but besides that, I think the questions I want confirmed the most are: "Have you made edits on behalf of another person without pay?" and "If yes, then why?" --Super Goku V (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  It’s my contest! Nigerian version of Wiki loves Pride (Write for Rights) sponsored by the foundation. Obinna Tony (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, meta:Write for the Rights Nigeria 2026. I see that you have mentioned that you are a coordinator for this. Do I understand the Prizes page correctly and that first and second place get money? If I am mistaken, then what does 70k and 50k mean in the context of the contest? If I am not mistaken, is that USD? Finally, there are no points at all for nominations, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nope. That’s in naira. They are both equivalent to $60 and $40.

  Do you mean no points for article nominations? If yes, none! Obinna Tony (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  It did seem way too much to be USD, but I had to check. Also, I am realizing here that I got my nominations mixed up and am now realizing this was the part about the AfD nominations. But this still leads to another question or two for SafariScribe given that they knew you were a coordinator and why they didn't mention the contest had monetary prizes in their earlier comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oh. The contest is different from the article the original poster highlighted as COI. The AFD is about Nigerian entertainment and our contest is focused on LGBTIQ people, topics and identities. Obinna Tony (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  True, but specifically regarding the contest SafariScribe said the following: The AFD nominations were all validly done. If you ask why I had to nominate at a roll, it was because I had a contest which I am participating in, and one of the editors, probably to me, has been creating articles that fall short of notability, hence my nomination (...) Problem is, the user SafariScribe seems to be referring to is you, Obinna Tony, as three of the four AfDs listed above were from articles created by you. But you are a coordinator, which SafariScribe should have know from the talk page discussion they started, and you said that I am not a part of the contest (...) on the page where points are being counted which SafariScribe edited multiple times. So SafariScribe's explanation here doesn't seem to hold water when they know that your points don't count for this contest. And there is more that Myceteae pointed out below that is concerning as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  The more concerning thing is that an editor would actively seek to undermine another to win a monetary prize. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is the odd part of this. If we assume good faith and trust that SafariScribe is telling the truth, then yes, they are admitting to attempting to undermine Obinna Tony in the contest. But, the problem is that it is hard to assume good faith here that SafariScribe is telling the truth when they reasonably knew that Obinna Tony wasn't eligible for the prizes from the contest. It is a problem either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  SafariScribe referenced the contest as part of the explanation for the appearance of targeting Nigerian LGBTQ+ articles for deletion. Specifically, the explanation is that SafariScribe's series of AFD nominations all stemmed from concern about contributions of a single editor (Obinna Tony) publishing non-notable articles as part of said contest, where the contest just happens to be about LBGTQ+ Nigerian topics. I find SafariScribe's explanation self-contradictory and unconvincing in light of their overall pattern of behavior with respect to AFC, NPP, and interactions at AFD and WT:LGBTQ+. I outlined these concerns earlier in the thread but I was a little late and this may have gotten buried. I acknowledge that animus against the LGBTQ+ community is inconclusive and that this is a secondary concern here but I continue to find this troubling. SafariScribe admits to a lower standard for approving most Nigerian topics and even bypasses secondary review by independent NPP editors, but has such concern about the quality of LGBTQ+ Nigerian articles that they felt compelled to hastily nominate them for deletion without an adequate BEFORE. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for this. I wanted to point this out initially but I didn’t want to be accused of being obsessed again. lol. And it’s also funny that the articles he approved as highlighted by the OP are not only about sources but AI hallucinated content with the source not supporting the content. So, it’s not really about lowering standards in terms of source. Also, he initially nominated only one of my articles, which was ISDAO and I was like “okay, I believe this is notable enough but I will wait for LGBTIQ editors to chirp in,” then another Nigerian editor came to make a snide comment about LGBTQ+ opinion not mattering that much if an article is not notable instead of simply adding their comment. Then I got emotional (which I regretted) and let it off, and he started mass nominating others. He did with three (which he ended up closing one). Obinna Tony (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  • let off

  Obinna Tony (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't think we need to belabor the point here. I only raised it again because it was part of SafariScribe's response that I found unsatisfactory and that I had not seen others comment on yet, and because Super Goku V brought up this part of the response revealing some initial confusion as to which incidents it referred to. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also, for the sake of accuracy, SafariScribe did not 'close' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Love but effectively withdrew the nomination after being persuaded to keep, and allowed an uninvolved editor to assess consensus and make the ultimate determination. I do think this speaks to a series of hasty nominations that reveal a double standard, but it is a good thing when editors are able to change their mind during the course of a deletion discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oh. Wow. Thank you. Obinna Tony (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V, No. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the confirmation. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the acceptance of a significant number of non-notable articles has created substantial additional work for reviewers and patrollers, and I understand the frustration expressed by everyone who is now doing the clean up. However, I am not convinced that a block is the appropriate remedy in this case. The issue here appears to be one of editorial judgement and competence in applying notability standards rather than deliberate disruption, vandalism, or bad-faith conduct. The removal of AfC and NPP permissions would directly address the area in which the problems occurred and would prevent similar issues from recurring. Blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Given that the proposed removal of advanced permissions would already mitigate the risk of further problematic article acceptances, I am not persuaded that an additional block is necessary to protect the encyclopaedia. Accordingly, I support the removal of AfC and NPP rights, but I oppose a block.. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that this was not deliberate disruption, @Reading Beans. @SafariScribe has clearly stated this was a deliberate purposeful bias in favour of Nigerian drafts. qcne (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Qcne, you are getting me wrong, sorry, I do not knowingly allowed blatantly non-notable articles in here on Wikipedia, I just reviewed them with a 50-50 judge rate (which is of course less strict). Did you remember that time when a judgement was passed on me by maybe User:Fram that I am strict and that WP:AFCSTANDARDS implies less judgement to a draft. Let me find the link to that discussion. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

But SafariScribe, you have said above that ...my gross (high) acceptance rate which often makes me accept even drafts that meet no/less of GNG and that you apologise, especially for using the AFC and NPP tools improperly to accept drafts (...) when they have low sources that at the end of the day may not meet WP:GNG. You accepted some drafts knowing they did not meet the 50-50 mark; you must have known that they would not survive an AfD discussion.

I know having to decline a huge number of drafts can be unpleasant, and declining drafts about your own country can be even worse - I have been sad to see drafts for Australian subjects declined. But accepting drafts you know should not be accepted hurts Wikipedia, and it very much hurts the reputation of AfC reviewers. If submitters know that one AfC reviewer can be persuaded to accept bad drafts if they're related to a particular country, how can they believe the system is fair? Why would they believe that I am unbiased when they know you are not? I am grateful that you have come clean, but I am very disappointed and saddened that this happened at all.

If you get the AfC and NPP tools back, I would ask you to please consider not reviewing any drafts about Nigerian subjects, at least for a while. Let other reviewers take on those drafts. There is so much work you could have done that would have helped Wikipedia rather than hurt it - there will still be plenty of non-Nigerian drafts if you choose to return and are accepted as a reviewer again. Meadowlark (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

+1: But I think SafariScribe should step away from reviewing for now. Months away from a particular hobby would give them some clarity but I think that a block is now punitive instead of preventive. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Meadowlark, thank you. I will keep to that. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:56, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose block, I don't think I see convincing enough evidence to point towards WP:UPE. What has been identified is a preference towards reviewing Nigerian articles, which sure, I can see that in the context of being into Nigerian culture (I think you could probably drawn a correlation to my activity and Indian startup drafts or cybersecurity articles when I was active). Additionally SafariScribe has themselves noted that they took a relatively lax approach to judging the notability with the intent to fix systemic bias. I do not think of this as a good use of NPP and AFC perms, though from a policy POV, unless there is evidence that their acceptance were particularly poor (i.e. below the 50/50 bar) I don't see a situation where sanctions above rights removal for that would stick. I do however see abuse of NPP and AFC specifically to antagonize other contest participants, and for that I support the status-quo of AFC and NPP removal. -- Sohom (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would agree with this if there was an explanation for why they suddenly started in December 2025 accepting Nigeria-related drafts less than 10 mins after they were submitted. They themselves have said: "I didn't notice any change whatsoever regarding anything that began happening in December 2025." InfernoHues (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @InfernoHues, Going from working middle-of-the-queue to front-of-the-queue would create such an anomaly without necessarily registering as a significant change in reviewing workflow though. Also, I'm not sure I trust the stats to tell the story it is telling given the very small sample sizes that we are working with <10 articles per month. Sohom (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not an AfC reviewer so I'll leave it to those with more experience. I think it's weird that an editor would choose to go front of queue only for Nigerian related articles, with large gaps where they don't (the Nigeria accepts in my initial table go back much further in time than the other accepts). That said, I agree a block isn't needed here. InfernoHues (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've unblocked SafariScribe. I don't think a block is necessary to prevent disruption at this point given that NPP/AFC access has been revoked. I suggest that they assist editors with the ongoing cleanup effort. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I also agree that sorting the AFC queue as described could lead to this scenario, rather than UPE. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with the unblock, and agree with this analysis in the sense that I often filter my new pages feed to view subjects where I have greater expertise and can review more quickly—but it’s not an excuse or an explanation for deliberately not applying notability standards to Nigerian topics as SafariScribe has said. Since they have admitted editing and applying standards non-neutrally in those topics, I wonder if a topic ban from Nigerian subjects might be in order (subject to appeal after demonstrably neutral editing in other subjects). Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think a topic ban is probably premature. The issue was largely with AFC/NPP misuse. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Apologies if I'm missing something, but was there more to the suspicion of paid editing -- specifically UPE, not just failing to review drafts thoroughly -- than the fact that someone completely different was contacted by a completely different spam farm based out of a completely different country? Because if not, that's a wild leap to conclusions and probably worth a warning in and of itself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well the fact that it was specifically Nigerian entertainment people related drafts I noticed this pattern in, and not other Nigeria-related topics or other people was what made me suspicious. Sorry about that SafariScribe, I apologize for assuming that right out of the gate. InfernoHues (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Personally, I thought it was due to stuff like King Kaly where an IP user created it and put it up for submission in 7 minutes, then SafariScribe approved it instantly. Teemeeysax was in 4 minutes, Isaac Bholu was done in 16, and Fransax took just 6. Euphoria360 Media on December 19th seems to have been the fastest this has occurred with User:~2025-41839-75 creating a draft at 12:58:00, the same IP user submitting it for review at 12:58:58 or 58 seconds later, and SafariScribe approving it for the mainspace at 13:00:44 or 106 seconds later for a total of 164 seconds from a draft to becoming an article. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, there's also been a previous attempt to improperly create King Kaly, which I had watchlisted and is how this was brought to my attention. There are also existing sockfarms focusing on Nigerian entertainment topics. InfernoHues (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  That was my read of the initial filing and most of the subsequent discussion: Extremely rapid approval of Nigerian topic AFCs and marking as patrolled to bypass secondary review. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  An aside, but I forgot to check Miichkel on December 3rd, which ended up being the fastest so far. It was created by ~2025-38170-58 at 08:47:25, then submitted by them 20 seconds later at 08:47:45, and then approved by SafariScribe 44 seconds later at 08:48:27 for a total of 62 seconds as a draft. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I guess the only things left that I want to ask SafariScribe would be if they review one article at a time or multiple at a time, along with if they have a reasonable explanation for their speed of approvals here. --Super Goku V (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V, I review one article at a time and I have no explanation for my fast review or even acceptance. I resolve to limit my speed. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  (I have been toying back and forth on replying to this with the following for the past week. Given what has happened since, I will just post it as it is with no further changes outside this text in parenthesis and adding a signature. I don't expect a reply to this for obvious reasons.)

  SafariScribe, limiting your speed isn't the issue other than your fast reviews showing that you likely are not reviewing the articles. The issue that concerns me is how fast some of your approvals are from article creation. Stuff like on December 3rd as I mentioned in my last comment:

  • 08:44:32 - You decline Draft:AMREF Flying Doctors.
  • 08:44:35 - You send a decline notice to the editor.
  • 08:47:25 - An IP user creates Miichkel.
  • 08:47:45 - The IP user submits the article.
  • 08:48:26 - You approve the article's creation in your log.
  • 08:48:27 - You move the article to the mainspace.

  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Temporary partial block SafariScribe's admitted decision to be more permissive with Nigerian drafts is concerning. When combined with possible evidence of being intentionally strict with Nigerian LGBTQ+ articles, it's particularly troubling. There's a substantial amount of information to sort through in this discussion, and I think that an interim partial block is reasonable while that happens. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Tioaeu8943, your word being intentionally strict with Nigerian LGBTQ+ articles sounds more like a usual hasty generalisation. However this is clearly cherry picking and I warn that you verify things before making them a law or belief. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please quote my statement in full for context. I wrote: When combined with possible evidence of being intentionally strict with Nigerian LGBTQ+ articles, it's particularly troubling. Omitting the words possible evidence of materially changes the meaning of my comment. I was referring to concerns that had been raised in this discussion and not presenting them as established fact. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

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

What to do with approved drafts?

Does anyone have ideas on how the approved drafts should be dealt with? Marked unpatrolled? Draftified? I'll leave a notification on the AfC page. InfernoHues (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Dclemens1971 beat you to it on the NPP/R talk page. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 01:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The gold standard is a full review of the sources for an accepted article, which involves more time than was spent in accepting them. I've reviewed one of them. I might or might not review any more of them. They should, in my opinion, at a minimum, all be marked unpatrolled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@SafariScribe Would you be up for committing to systematically revisiting the articles you've accepted, contributing substantial work to remediate your choices? This could involve conducting full source review and going through WP:BEFORE for each one, adding secondary sources if available, and nominating for merge/delete/draftify as needed. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that Safari has lost at least my confidence, and if I read this discussion correctly, that of much of the community here gathered, isn't asking them to mark their own homework just going to dig us into that much deeper hole? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I have concerns about this, too. SafariScribe has expressed some acceptance and contrition but the overall response is still wanting. I'm not exactly opposed to SafariScribe taking on this review but I do have reservations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

They're clearly capable of doing proper source/notability reviews (see their AfD noms). Whether they will is another question. InfernoHues (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

We routinely ask editors who have done something wrong to help with cleanup. See, for example, CCI. Perhaps SafariScribe can take a first pass at articles they've patrolled/accepted at AfC and identify ones that other editors should take a look at. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade, Yes I will. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the above comment was SafariScribe's last edit to this project. I know we don't have deadlines, but should we at least agree some sort of realistic time frame for when the review and improvement work will be carried out, if we're relying on Safari to do it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a block from mainspace until this sort of thing is in full progress (i.e. they can post their findings on the talk pages) will be suitable to avoid any sort of extended ANI flu. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

For the record, SafariScribe has contributed again to this discussion since the above comment on the 2nd. Earlier in the discussion, it was noted that several days' absence is not an uncommon pattern. I have no opinion about a block and make no claims of judging the reason for their recent period of inactivity. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, For the time being, I have resumed and I have started revisiting my reviews, especially the ones listen herein. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

SafariScribe, you may wish to revisit your deletion rationale in this nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I have revisited it. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the new situation, here is a link to SafariScribe's moves from Drafts since mid-October, most of which were AfC related. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

UPE or no?

• UPE block is long-overdue(IMO): I'm glad I caught this before it was archived. Around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur), they were very active and it was very evident that they were involved in UPE. If you dig through their AfC acceptances and reviews, you’ll notice a clear pattern - they would quickly accept articles from IPs, SPAs, now-blocked socks and throwaway accounts. These are often buried among 10-15 legitimate acceptances/reviews. If someone wants to dig further into this, they should examine the articles they accepted or reviewed that were authored by IPs/SPAs (both inactive and active) and now-blocked socks.

I couldn’t spend much time following this at the time because they were making a large number of edits, which made it difficult to keep track. Even though it’s been a while, I'm glad someone else has noticed this pattern as well Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It is because I often think that accepting at least some Nigerian articles that has at least two to three good sources are better for the development of the Nigerian project - what a blatant lie.

• Adenike Adeleke - Sources are AI slop
• Funbi Funbi - Press releases and interviews
• Israel Fagbemigun, Miichkel & Isaac Bholu - We are now getting images from User:Benbaahi who has supposedly been on a hiatus, yet somehow returns each time SafariScribe accepts an article into mainspace. They come back online exactly around that time, almost as if they receive a notification - Miichkel, Isaac Bholu, Abidemi Sax, Israel Fagbemigun and SIINKO (File:SIINKO.loyo.jpeg). They seem to have done nothing else around that time.
• Do I think User:Reading Beans is involved in this now? Possibly, as they are also supporting SafariScribe in this thread, but that is for another day.
• Shashicka Tyre-Riley - A neat article. What are the odds that User:Scanobo came across Shashicka Tyre-Riley, removed negative content from the subject's lead and also added an image uploaded by a now-blocked user? Coincidentally, the same user has also added Prateek Suri and Maser Group to BITS Pilani. The Maser Group article was created by SafariScribe, moved to draft by them, then resubmitted and accepted by them again. Prateek Suri was written by an IP and accepted by Reading Beans within two minutes of submission.

Though CU may be useless, the above is more than sufficient to run a check on these accounts and I am confident I could find more if I wasted another day on this. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found a bunch of similarly strange accounts around this topic area and was planning on filing an SPI when I got less busy. I don't think SafariScribe themselves is in control of any of these though, they might have just been inadvertently helping them. InfernoHues (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a widespread UPE farm, so they are not personally operating them for sure, but I believe I have filed enough SPIs against experienced editors to know that this was not done inadvertently. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm only referring here to the pattern of a TA creating a draft on a Nigeria-related topic, and SafariScribe very quickly accepting it. I can think of only two reasonably plausible scenarios for that to happen repeatedly, one of which is (IMO) more likely than the other, but I've no way of knowing with any real certainty which it is. I don't think that matters, however, because either way I cannot see how this would not involve UPE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis that this is UPE, the alternative is implausible. I support an indef block. I think User:Reading Beans also needs to explain their apparent involvement in a paid-editing ring, as they have extensive interaction with Safari Scribe. Fences&Windows 00:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There's also User:Benbaahi as mentioned by Jeraxmoira, who mainly seems to create promotional Nigerian articles and upload images to the potential UPE articles approved by SafariScribe. InfernoHues (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone please provide evidence for Safari Scribe being UPE that does not hinge on very quick acceptance of drafts? Thank you. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Site Ban

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

---

We have seen more than enough evidence to conclude that User:SafariScribe has been accepting articles without proper review, and has, at a minimum, been evasive in explaining their conduct to the community. A reasonable man or woman can conclude that this was undisclosed paid editing, but, even if it wasn't (although the alternative is implausible), it was contrary to the interests of the encyclopedia. The community has tried for 20 days to resolve this, unsuccessfully. There is enough evidence for a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per reasoning of proposal. I have been eyeing this discussion for long enough to deduce that this is the most reasonable option, and I see no other alternative that would fit as an action to respond to the conduct of SafariScribe. Beta Beta Beta - talk 03:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, excuse me, I wonder the conduct you are referring to? To keep repeating myself that I have never edited for any payment whatsoever? I have stated my reasons and my high acceptance rate and I have clarified all that I was to but for anything UPE, I am not a subscriber to such. So I keep looking at what exactly or the so-called evidence you claim to have that makes me open for a site ban. I always see justice being blind. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support per my rationale above and requesting a CU to flush out the remaining accounts involved. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. While SafariScribe has admitted lowering standards for some Nigerian topics, they have not addressed the very clear evidence of the timing of their immediate acceptances (and NPP reviews) of articles that belong nowhere near mainspace. The timing is the key evidence of UPE, and as such failure to address it undermines SafariScribe's categorical denials of UPE. Sad it's come to this but the community's trust is lost and I don't see a way for SafariScribe to begin rebuilding it without some time away from the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support as above. Fences&Windows 14:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support: based on my own findings and the above discussions, I consider it more likely than not that SafariScribe has engaged in UPE. But even if not, by their own admission they have misused (or abused, depending on your interpretation) their role as AfC and NPP reviewer, to unduly favour certain topic areas. I believe this has damaged beyond repair the trust placed in them by the community. I will add that when this was first brought to ANI, I already expected from past dealings there to be at least some merit in the case, but was still hoping the matter could be resolved somehow; alas, the extent of the problem has only been revealed to be greater than I had anticipated. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I get the general sense that SafariScribe isn't engaging in UPE, but instead has a lighter standard for Nigerian drafts. (Probably for reflexive nationalist reasons, but the why isn't particularly important.) A good portion of the drafts they touch are going to be UPE or AI, because of the topic area. It is a bad convergence of forces, but not UPE by itself. A better option would be to topic ban them from reviewing drafts connected to Sub-Saharan Africa rather than a full site ban. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wouldnt the hypothetical topic ban just be on Nigerian topics? Have they been known to quickly accept drafts relating to other sub saharan countries/topics? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would be okay with the scope being somewhere between Nigeria and all LMICs. I think removing them from areas with large amounts of UPE and AI slop would be beneficial for everyone involved -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think it should be noted that Scribe has edited many articles relating to systemic bias Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ameerh Naran in my initial table was not Nigerian, but was also a similarly promotional draft accepted quickly. I jumped to assuming UPE too quickly here and I apologize for that. No opinion on this proposal. InfernoHues (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I won't stand in the way after seeing some of the other evidence --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I do want to say that I am thankful that you did suggest an alternative as I was willing to support one. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree that Safari Scribe has been evasive and that their reviews have been poor quality. However, the timing is suspicious - as in, it tends to counter UPE as plausible, in this scenario. Sorry for being vague here, but in the event that any actual UPE (including perhaps SS) are reading this, I'd prefer not to spill any more beans than necessary. For full disclosure, Guerillero's comment and mine are coming in close proximity because we have just been discussing this off-wiki; functs have been talking about this case for a while, including long before it was brought to this noticeboard. I would ask that you give us some more time to work through the evidence before concluding that this is UPE and requires a site ban. Please send any relevant off-wiki evidence to COIVRT asap, and thank you. At any rate, the relevant permissions have already been revoked, so from that perspective, the damage has been contained. Count me neutral on the topic ban. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Alright, COIVRT investigation on Safari Scribe specifically is a wrap. Courtesy ping to Guerillero to have a look at ticket:2026071810000851. Do note that this does not preclude the community voting to add a cban of some kind on top; go wild. And if you spot any further evidence, do send it to WP:COIVRT. Thanks! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support, the trust is gone. Bishonen | tålk 20:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC).
• Support indef or topic ban for SS, and at least a topic ban for Reading Beans, whose conduct as evidenced and displayed above is especially suspect. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  What has Reading Beans done? InfernoHues (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the above, here is my understanding: Reading Beans was defending SafariScribe prior to SafariScribe's first response here. After SafariScribe started commenting here, Reading Beans seems to have implied that we were crucifying SafariScribe and suggested to them that they should give up their NPP and AfC rights to satisfy things instead of SafariScribe getting being blocked. Finally, Jeraxmoira's comment in the above section gives evidence that seems to indicate that Reading Beans has been engaging in potential UPE. Part of said evidence is Reading Beans' edit interactions with User:Benbaahi, who was just blocked for undisclosed paid editing in the same hour as SafariScribe was blocked. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I received your message on my talkpage. I don’t disagree there’s a lot of COI/UPE going on in Nigeria related articles but if you edit and create articles relating to Nigeria, chances are that you’re going to collide with one or two UPE account. Also, I authorize CU on my account as recommended by Jeraxmoira. Now, would I oppose an indef? Absolutely not. If any one is going to make recommendations, I’ll recommend a full site-ban (not a topic ban); I can’t leave my country or continent to write about others. Now, I’ll appreciate that no one pings me to this time consuming discussion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  (As an aside, you did reply to Jeraxmoira's comment above, but I am still explaining this from my understanding of things just in case I got something wrong.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The evidence does not suggest UPE is the only or even most plausible explanation. As asilvering notes, the relevant permissions have been revoked so the disruption has already been stopped. What disruption is a ban supposed to achieve prevent now? Sanctions are supposed to be preventative not punitive. Katzrockso (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The behavior SafariScribe has admitted to is unacceptable and I find their explanations—or lack thereof—for all of it unsatisfying. But the worst behavior was largely constrained to AFC and NPP privileges, which have already been revoked, and should not be restored. SafariScribe's edits are likely to now be under increased scrutiny, and apparently other investigations have already been underway. I prefer to give SafariScribe a second chance to contribute in other areas, though I admit I have some reservations.< —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Proposal 2: Indef. The case for UPE is not proven, but the case that something(s) is/are wrong with SafariScribe's judgement is strong. After all this time, I still don't see them engaging with the extremely rapid AfC acceptances (let's call them what they were: rubberstamping), they have admitted to bias in reviewing, and their offering to go slow—or to stop reviewing—is underwhelming. UPE isn't the only misconduct that damages the encyclopedia, and this editor has completely lost my trust. But maybe it was a transient aberration in their thought processes. Plus people can change. If either of those turns out to apply, let them apply for unblock at some time in the future. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir, an indefinite block, set via consensus on this page, is a site ban. This proposal is not functionally different from "Proposal 1". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering: I was being a bit tricksy, in view of your post above in which you seem to have a bit of tunnel vision about UPE, as if removing their review permissions (or topic restricting those permissions as Guerillero suggests) would suffice for someone who has shown themself to be biased in at least one and probably multiple ways. However, what I was angling for some admin to do has been done: Moneytrees has indeffed SafariScribe (for UPE). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware. You may want to read my earlier comment. :) In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Well, I had hoped it wasn't the case, but evidence that can't be discussed publicly implicates Safari in undeclared paid editing, or makes them awfully look like an undeclared paid editor. I've blocked them now. Do with that information what you want, I have no preference between a ban/no ban. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, in light of UPE findings. I realize it's already done, but this officially changes my view. I already had serious reservations about not banning SafariScribe, and I guess I should have listened to those. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae, it's not "already done", exactly - 'Scribe has been indeffed via COIVRT, but the community can add whatever kind of ban we like on top of that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I did see your above comment. So there's no confusion, I support a community-imposed site ban as proposed by Robert McClenon. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support based on what @Moneytrees: has said, and unsatisfactory responses (or lack thereof) from Safari Scribe regarding why they review certain articles so quickly. jolielover♥talk 06:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Their conduct is wholeheartedly unacceptable, and I don't think an indef block is enough. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Because they lied to the community about their UPE an indef isn't sufficient. Any appeal should need to be granted by the community. BilledMammal (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support based on Moneytrees comments. TarnishedPath^talk 08:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN: per the comment about the COIVRT findings above. SafariScribe being persistently dishonest and evasive about their UPE clearly breaks the community's trust. ~SG5536B 09:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - To be clear, if it wasn't for the evidence indicating/confirming UPE, I would have been neutral on this and supportive of alternative sanctions due to either their attempt to undermine a monetary contest hosted on Meta-Wiki or their attempt to go after one of the coordinators who was not eligible to win said contest by sending multiple articles that they created to AfD. I didn't feel like SafariScribe was being completely honest with all of their statements, but at the same time, I didn't feel like the evidence that was presented was enough for a site ban due to it primarily being about acceptance times and the draft authors mainly being single-purpose accounts. I am grateful that this was already being looked into by functionaries and that they were able to determine what likely happened thanks to other users. I do agree with BilledMammal that any future appeal should come before the community, hence my support for this. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Closing admin comment, I had closed this as the following, and was asked to reopen so I have done so. Not going to !vote so it isn't perceived as supervote and also no green to blind us all. We are shy of 72 hours in the Community Ban subthread, but this discussion has been going on far longer with SafariScribe having been blocked, unblocked and now reblocked indefinitely by Moneytrees following review of private evidence. Given the terms of that block, further discussion here is unnecessary. Should SafariScribe decide to appeal the block, and a COI/VRT admin OK it, terms of an unblock or lessened block can be discussed here. Star Mississippi 16:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Das osmnezz, again

Das osmnezz (talk · contribs)

See previous AN/ANI threads:

1. February 2017
2. July 2017
3. July 2020
4. October 2023
5. April 2025 (which I started, for transparency)

They were blocked 6 times - 2 indefinitely - in 2016/2017, and have subsequently been subject to editing restrictions, since lifted.

The concerns I raised in April 2025 remain as valid as ever (and raised by many others before me!) - this is an editor with a very long history of questionable article creation (primarily but not exclusively BLPs), including the mass creation of poorly written and/or non-notable articles (see huge number of PROD/AFD/draftification warnings on their talk page). Editors have also raised concerns about basic errors in the articles. Links to evidence are in the previous ANI threads and I so won't repeat them here.

Despite attempts at discussing the issue, they continue to do this. I propose an indefinite topic ban for Das osmnezz from creating new articles in any space, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 09:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Support article creation ban. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban - Idk why previous discussions broiught up when I have internalized them and after those discussions my articles have been much different. Not many articles I have created in the last couple years have been deleted. I spend tons of time researching each player I create has a few decent sources. These are mainly articles from years ago when I was less aware of various aspects so idk how that is relevant. And again: among my recent creations Wiktor Nowak, Oskar Kubiak, Sabri Guendouz, Tom Renaud, Neo Lima Stacziwa, Keito Kumashiro, Ange N'Guessan, Kristers Penkevics. among yours (GiantSnowman): Arjan Wisse (I am sure if I just put links as slurces you would try to ban me), Colin Flatt, Christian Tchouante, Travis Akomeah, Temple Ojinnaka, Ben Middlemas, Will Brook. I have nothing against you and idk why the beef. I am at a loss how yours are better or more notable let alone how how mine are worse or less notable let alone so much worse that it is ban-worthy. It makes no sense on multiple levels. I notice a trend of the users that go out of their way to threaten other users with bans or try to mass delete articles tending to create many articles that would be reasons for ban or deleted under their own criteria. Idk why people are like this. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience and will continue trying my best and creating decent pages of players with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The biggest advocates for my ban are a user whose 3 out of 4 of his last articles are Aaron Loupalo-Bi (old revision before table and image added by other user), Arjan Wisse, and Temple Ojinnaka and a user whose 3 out of 4 of his last articles are Rose Laliberté-Roy, Laura Hall, and Daniel Hall, while my last three are Asane Sow, Jamal Iddrissou, Gonçalo Oliveira , thanks to the one user who has been specific. I am actually crying with incredulity. I have nothing against them or their articles and idk why the beef. I am at a loss how theirs are better or more notable let alone how how mine are worse or less notable let alone so much worse that it is ban-worthy. It makes no sense on multiple levels. I notice a trend of the users that go out of their way to threaten other users with bans or try to mass delete articles tending to create many articles that would be reasons for ban or deleted under their own criteria. Idk why people are like this. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Concerns over content quality are not personal. You made it personal by repeatedly pointing fingers at others despite being asked to refrain multiple times, as well as your other behavior here. I had no bone to pick when I dropped in to offer a bit of good faith advice initially. At this point I think you're only digging your hole deeper and would be better off sitting back and waiting for the community to reach consensus, but you'll probably ignore that advice too.

Additionally, I'm not sure why you dropped this way back up here - this section is chaotic enough as it is. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying its personal and have never explicitly insulted anyone, I am just pointing out a trend I noticed (that does not only affect me), and I was never referring to you, I am talking about specific ppl who I have mentioned, you have been chill. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "beef" if not personal conflict? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that Das osmnezz might just be getting a bit stressed out by being on such a public noticeboard. I hope we can cut them a teensy bit of slack in light of this.

Das, it's not really a good idea to bring up the behaviour of other editors unless you've got specific evidence & can show that it's worthy of attention from admins - even though it's not your intention, it can come off as an attempt to deflect attention away from problems with your own editing or avoiding accountability. I don't think that's what you meant to do at all, but that's how it could easily look too an outside observer.

Some editors focus their work on anti-vandalism or a specific queue/worktype that brings them into contact with problem editors much more often than the average editor; each case should be assessed on its own merits and circumstances, so generalising is seldom helpful and often harmful.

Please try to remember that we don't know who you are behind the screen, all we can see is what you do on Wikipedia - none of this is personal and it's not something anyone enjoys, we're all just doing our best as volunteers to keep Wikipedia functional and productive. Whatever happens next, it'll be done to protect the project and not to punish you - it's also incredibly rare for things to get so bad that an editor can't get back to where they were through hard work and experience. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, for ChompyTheGogoat, "beef" could be against other people, (e.g. someone may say "they have beef agaisnt others or group(s)"), and for Blue-Sonnet, and yeah that is what i am trying to do and appreciate the kind words. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that usage, which refers to having a personal conflict with them. You typically wouldn't say you "had beef" with someone over a polite professional disagreement, for example. This may be a case of misinterpreting the colloquialism. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think this report would benefit from specific examples of ongoing problems rather than just pointing to the previous reports. That said, if articles are being regularly draftified, then that's probably a good sign that autopatrolled should be revoked; a lot of these articles are at a minimum skating very close to the line as far as notability is concerned, so I think they would benefit from getting other eyes on them (which is ultimately all the NPP process is about). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of my articles from past year have not been draftified. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Well yeah, if your articles aren't being reviewed then that's to be expected. The expectation with autopatrolled is that all articles are ready for mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The reason why I became autopatrolled was since the vast majority of my articles from past year have not been draftified. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: if you want specific examples, just from the past 3 months:

1. Malik Pimpong, created after this ANI discussion started - 5 sources, of which 2 (arguably 3) are WP:ROUTINE, 1 is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and 1 is OK-ish. Overall - would struggle to meet GNG in current form.
2. Bruno Alves (footballer, born 2005) - had 3 sources when created by DO, 1 is a database, 1 is generic, 1 is OK-ish. Overall - would struggle to meet GNG in current form.
3. Florian Milla - deleted by PROD due to being non-notable
4. Antonio Morić - draftified following AFD
5. Göksu Hasancik - deleted by AFD due to non-notability

etc. etc. GiantSnowman 08:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Göksu Hasancik, Florian Milla were created 3+ years ago and Antonio Morić draftified and the rest meet critera. Again, among yours (GiantSnowman): Arjan Wisse (I am sure if I just put links as slurces you would try to ban me), Colin Flatt, Christian Tchouante, Travis Akomeah, Temple Ojinnaka, Ben Middlemas, Will Brook. I have nothing against you and idk why the beef. I am at a loss how yours are better or more notable let alone how how mine are worse or less notable let alone so much worse that it is ban-worthy. It makes no sense on multiple levels. I notice a trend of the users that go out of their way to threaten other users with bans or try to mass delete articles tending to create many articles that would be reasons for ban or deleted under their own criteria. Idk why Wikipedia is like this. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience and will continue trying my best and creating decent pages of players with sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You keep repeating that mantra but do nothing to change. You seem to be obsessed with churning out poor quality, questionably notability BLPs, and have continued to do so even after this ANI thread started. GiantSnowman 08:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Ayoub Mouloua - 3 sources; 1 ROUTINE transfer news, 1 database, 1 a decent but short profile. Overall - does not meet GNG in current form. GiantSnowman 13:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have changed a ton over time and will continue to do so. Look, do you really want me to rant about your articles which you have never changed from (nothing against u or them but purely using your own criteria with your own insults and harshness)? Also in fact I am a bit obsessed with finding sources (to the point I get "hyped" to do it lol) and put them in talk page a lot of time and go out of my way to choose all my in-article sources based on secondary information and almost never write down information that is purely based on a quote. Also if you are so concerned about finding sources, while you default to voting without looking for sources, there have been many AfD where I was the only person who went out of way to find sources using various different methods, especially in different languages, whcih resulted in article that otherwise would be deleted to be kept. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The article on Pimpong at creation didn't contain a single source that would satisfy NSPORT. The Tipsbladet piece is an interview with very little secondary coverage, almost all content being either quotes or reports of what Pimpong "felt". Das osmnezz still does not understand or refuses to acknowledge the requirement for in-depth IRS SIGCOV, and, as evident from many AfDs, is not competent enough at identifying trash sources to be entrusted with autopatrolled. For example, the sources Das osmnezz pointed to as "reliable" in the Antonio Morić AfD contained ChatGPT-generated images (labeled as such in captions) and rather than the bylines being human authors they instead state the text was auto-aggregated (presumably via LLM) from uncited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, serious concerns about competency. GiantSnowman 11:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Look, do you really want me to rant about your articles (nothing against u or them but purely using your own criteria with your own insults and harshness)? Also the AI was a one-time mistake since the source was comprehensive and most articles from that website are written by authors and due to translation errors. Also in fact I am a bit obsessed with finding sources (to the point I get "hyped" to do it lol) and put them in talk page a lot of time and go out of my way to choose all my in-article sources based on secondary information and almost never write down information that is purely based on a quote. Also if you are so concerned about finding sources, while you default to voting without looking for sources, there have been many AfD where I was the only person who went out of way to find sources using various different methods, especially in different languages, whcih resulted in article that otherwise would be deleted to be kept. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Your attempts to distract by pointing the finger back is as laughable as it is disappointing. Deal with your issues, not what you perceive of others, and stop copying & pasting the same comment multiple times. GiantSnowman 17:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

"Deal with your issues, not what you perceive of others"... My point is I am only one trying to deal with my issues that you are going out of your way to perceive of me. Deal with your issues, not what you perceive of others. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You are patently not dealing with any issues, given the continued concerns that multiple editors have about you. GiantSnowman 20:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Support But it should probably be an indefinite ban, not infinite. Fence127 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been on here for 1 week, could you explain why? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Another new creation, after the ANI thread started - Ota Yamamoto. Three sources - one decent (AGF - I don't speak Japanese), one PRIMARY (Bundesliga), one a database. Overall - another GNG fail. Beyond that, also poorly written. When will this stop? GiantSnowman 18:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I put sources in the talk page. Idt every footballer article has all possible sources in the article but if you want I could add those sources to the article itself. Idk what metrics mean a "poorly written" football player article, everyone has their own definition. I used to write with more "color" which was criticized and now I write like this which has not been criticized and link articles in my writing too (like certain seasons, etc). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are you putting sources on talk pages? What does that accomplish? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I just didn't think I had to use all non-routine sources I could find about a player in the article itself, and put them there for future reference, and now I know. Das osmnezz (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have previously expressed concern over Das omnezz's AP flag. I remain concerned about it. However, when NPP is as backlogged as it is, I don't think pulling it will achieve very much. I haven't looked at recent concerns to see if a creation restriction is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Two years ago! The issues are ongoing and persistent and have been for years... GiantSnowman 18:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Das osmnezz, just wanted to give my two cents - I think for now, whilst the ANI discussion is ongoing, you should hold off from creating any more articles. I know you are extremely passionate about creating articles and finding sources, but a lot of the articles you've made are pretty short and are being created so quickly we can't properly review them.

There's a Wikipedia editor called 24Anonymous who writes excellent articles about women's footballers. Look at this article by them - Océane Toussaint. It's well-sourced, well-written, and even better that it's an article about a female footballer (which we are definitely needing more of!)

I think you should take a break, come back with a clear head, and look at how 24Anonymous writes and sources their articles - if you could make articles like this it would be a fantastic help! RossEvans19 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I think most football creators have articles on similar levels (some have better sources but less long, some longer but worse sources etc etc) and this may be one of few who clears on almost all levels. I will try my best to emulate but its hard to decide what specific details to add for each player article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If i'm honest, that doesn't sound like your that keen on my ideas. Das, there's been a few of these ANI threads now and things aren't changing. I really think you should take a break, address what people are saying and come back with the advice taken onboard. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thing is the "advice" half the time is vague and sometimes goes against what others say. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Overall, you would do well to focus on creating a smaller number of high quality in depth articles for subjects that you can find AMPLE reliable sources for, or making improvements to existing articles. Churning out a high number of low quality articles is one of the biggest issues that creates more work for other editors who have to patrol them and either attempt to improve them or go through the deletion process. It's a large part of why NPP is so backed up (hand in hand with AI creations). More isn't always better. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ChompyTheGogoat - I would much rather you make 1 article in the style of Océane Toussaint than 10 small ones. Maybe you could offer that - if you see sources about a footballer, make a draft for it first, not an article. And then stick to it RossEvans19 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say more important than ample reliable sources is ample independent RS providing secondary SIGCOV, which is where Das continues to struggle. JoelleJay (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes - they have a habit of writing articles that look OK but are actually not on any sensible review. GiantSnowman 17:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If we are purely talking about sources listed in article itself using the own criteria of those here I could say the same about a decent amount of 24Anonymous' articles. For my articles, my criteria has been in the article 2+ reliable independent sources with secondary coverage (per GNG "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material") and on top of that sources on talk page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Secondary significant coverage is what is required, not just "secondary coverage", and you should know from the hundreds of AfDs where your sources have been rejected that what you consider "more than a trivial mention" does not align with the community's expectations. JoelleJay (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support a restriction so that Das osmnezz is only allowed to publish one new article per day, as well as an absolute restriction on moving articles out of draft space. I would strongly urge Das osmnezz to stop making articles with 2 sources and sources on the talk page, instead publishing with 5-7 sources and none on the talk page. Geschichte (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I have changed my sources over the years and like I said majority of newerr articles pst few years have not been AFD. For source quanittiy I think one of my problems is I tend not to put purely sigining or match report sources etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay so, Das has created a new article recently - Jamal Iddrissou. This looks a lot better. Thoughts, everyone? RossEvans19 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The 5-7 sources should be secondary SIGCOV (or close to it) sources, not transactional or match report sources. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact he is still creating articles given the comments here is very concerning, and lots of sources is not the same as enough good-quality sources. This article probably would just scrape GNG, but nothing will change my mind on this matter other than him saying "I voluntarily agree not to create any more articles". GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I made sure the 5-7 sources are secondary SIGCOV or close to it. I am out here significatnly changing the way I make my articles in real time (Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira) and that is still not enough for a user whose 3 out of 4 of his last articles are Aaron Loupalo-Bi (old revision before table and image added by other user), Arjan Wisse, and Temple Ojinnaka. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the point. It's not about length. Without knowing anything about the subject their articles appear to be well sourced to me, and they were careful to not add any information that wasn't supported by said sources. It's better to have a short and accurate article (as long as it meets WP:GNG) than a long one with content that's problematic. They can always be expanded later. I just got my first article approved in no time as a stub, even though there's plenty of additional information available, because I didn't have enough time or brainpower to write a longer version correctly and ensure that every statement was properly cited, so I just added the most basic information and top sources. Those sources are already widely used and accepted in related articles, and anyone who pulls up the article can see what it's about and follow those sources for additional information - or expand it themselves based on them. It would NOT be correct for me to write what I know to be true about the subject without adequate citations, nor go looking for subpar sources to support what I want to say if it's not included in the reliable ones. The sources are everything. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

For the final time, please focus and reflect on your own behaviour which multiple editors have now raised concerns about, rather than trying to deflect and finger point at others. Such defensive behaviour does not suggest that you gave truly understood the issues or that you have genuinely changed. GiantSnowman 09:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

For the final time, I have been only focusing/changing my own articles and apologizing for any inconvenience for years and only recently started talking about your own articles after I made lots of changes (and continue to do). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Why won't you willingly stop creating articles? Why have you continued to create articles despite this discussion? How can we trust that you have 'changed' when you have said this before, and then gone straight back into the same poor habits, again and again? GiantSnowman 16:54, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to Snowman's questions - why do you feel that creating your own articles is the only way you can contribute, and why do you think that constantly apologizing after the fact instead of not causing problems in the first place is acceptable? It stops being a mistake after the first couple times. I'm inclined to think that a ban on ALL new article creations for a while and only letting you edit existing articles (with close oversight) is the only outcome that would have any meaningful effect. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

"Why won't you willingly stop creating articles? Why have you continued to create articles despite this discussion?" - This is getting ridiculous. All I have asked for was specificities which Geschichte gave. The only person here who was actually specific was Geschichte, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussuon, with even users saying they are much better. I know its not about length but RossEvan's example of a user's "excellent articles" (Océane Toussaint) seems to be more about length than purely source quality hence my confusion. And I have committed to what Geschichte said. There has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If you can't understand why the quality of that article isn't based simply on length (it's not even that long), that's further evidence that you don't grasp the fundamental issue at hand. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Only Geschichte was specific about the fundemantal issue and I have addressed it with my new articles. Again here has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. I initially didn't think it was about length at first for Océane Toussaint but after looking at all the sources for the article I thought it may have been. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

How are the problems ongoing nown? The only person here who was actually specific was Geschichte, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussiuon, with even users saying they are much better. The only "proof" of problems with my articles after Geschichte is GiantSnowman's vague assertations. This is getting ridiculous. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked @Das osmnezz from creating new pages while this discussion is ongoing as there is clear consensus that the problems are ongoing while this discussion is. This does not preclude a different consensus from forming and this block can be adjusted at any time if needed. It is indefinite as there is no timeline for the discussion to conclude. They retain access to contribute here and edit all other extant content. Star Mississippi 17:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sensible block, thank you. GiantSnowman 19:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it escalated to indef block from creating articles, to be honest, for a user who has a mere two deletions out of their last 1,000 articles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

How many articles draftified? How many articles have had concerns raised (a decent number, see above)? How many have slipped through the net? GiantSnowman 19:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you BeanieFan11 for being one of few rational ones here. For draftified, I'm pretty sure Antonio Morić (which I already addressed above) and maybe 1-2 more are the only from my last 1000 or in last year(s). The only "proof" of problems with my articles after what Geschichte said is GiantSnowman's vague assertations. Geschichte is only person here who was actually specific, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussion, since I realized the specifities and followed through on them (as I have done in the past with previous specifities), with even users saying they are much better. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only articles that have been draftified this year are Draft:Emmanuel Mbemba (by you), Draft:Antonio Morić, Draft:Fans United FC, Draft:FC Broke Boys, and Draft:Pahonia Warsaw, plus three that have since returned to mainspace: Anton Song, Club Sol de Mayo, Ali Kazim Nakhid. For an editor that creates hundreds of articles that isn't a ban-worthy track record. Why not nominate articles for deletion if they're non-notable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Because they produce articles so frequently that it's impossible for one person to constantly clean up after them, and if I did spend all my time taking his articles to AFD, I would no doubt be accused of harassment. Plus see below from Chompy - lots of the articles are notable, but that's only because lots of editors spend a lot of time cleaning them up. The issue is that, beyond the non-notable articles, DO also creates a lot of really poorly written/sourced ones. Plenty of examples above. GiantSnowman 19:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The biggest football AFD spammers or ban advocates tend to create articles that would apparently be ban-worthy or deleted purely using their own criteria and ideas of punishment. Like I literally have nothing agaisnt them or their articles but idk why they go out of their way to be the biggest AFD spammers or the biggest ban advocates, it is incredulous. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, please stop talking about other editors perceived conduct! You have been told this repeatedly by numerous editors. This is getting to WP:IDHT territory. GiantSnowman 20:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

We should start a counter. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I should start one (no I will not lol I am just playing, I am just saying I also reiterated my point many times. As I said many times elsewhere, my point is that only Geschichte was specific about the fundemantal issue and I have addressed it with my new articles (Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira). Again, there has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. This is my point I am trying to make. I have internalized what Geschichte said since he was only one being specific with what is a comprehensive article and created these articles to show this. This is my point I am trying to make. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we heard you the first, second, and tenth times. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

And they have either not been responded to or avoided with vague accusations hence me talking about that editor or repeating my above point. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to be very specific about issues that are very broad. We can't say "You should have used X source instead" for 1000+ articles. The concern is that you fundamentally misunderstand how sourcing (and to a lesser extent notability) works, and trivial changes won't solve that. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

To increase miscommunication its best for people (and that includes me) to be specific of what they want. Geschichte was able to, and if I wanted to talk about seemingly "broad" issues about a user, I could be specific about it. It's not trivial changes and yeah I do understand how sourcing works, hence how I choose my sources for article and talk page (which I now know to put in article). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Except according to numerous people here, you don't, and those changes aren't substantial enough to bring your articles up to par, which is the entire premise of this investigation. They'd been trying to explain it to you since long before this was opened, and most people realize that beyond a certain point there's no sense in continuing to make the same point over and over when someone either doesn't agree or doesn't comprehend. WP:DEADHORSE and all.

The fact that you've made this many articles and don't understand why adding sources to talk pages isn't useful (except in the context of edit requests) is EXTREMELY concerning, and once again points to a lack of basic proficiency. I think I grasped that on my first day - technically before, because I made one or two requests for simple additions before even creating this account, because I thought they belonged in existing articles but didn't want to muck them up attempting it myself. I knew the information wouldn't benefit the article until someone competent did add it for me. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

"Those changes aren't substantial enough to bring your articles up to par, which is the entire premise of this investigation"... My point is I did significantly change my articles during the investigation which an editor literally praised which is my entire point. And now that I remember, I was actually told about the Refideas function to add by another editor a while back since they said my articles had "too much sources". That is one of many specific advice I have received over the years that completely goes against other specific advice. There is no winning. Finally Geschicte said something actually specific here that I literally took on board during the discussion to apply to my articles which was literally praised and I got banned for that. There is no winning. Das osmnezz (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

My guess is that you were WP:REFBOMBing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also point out that one editor saying that one article looked better at a cursory glance does not equate to "The problem is solved". And once again conflating volume with quality. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No other editor looked at pages or even responded to RossEvan's statement and just made vague assertations. My comparison for this situation is a research class. Student A and B write similar level papers but Student A spends a lot of time getting mad at Student B's papers and trying to remove their papers and kick them out of the class and tries to get others to join them. Student B changes their papers many times but Student A does not care about this or their own papers and when Student B tells Student A, Student A responds, "focus on yourself" (which Student B did the entire class). When Student B's papers become of higher quality than Student A's, Student A avoids this and make vague assertations which results in Student B being kicked out of the class. Could you not understand the frustration? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That is not a relevant metaphor, because their papers only matter to themselves and don't affect anyone else. If student B writes a bad paper they flunk out and that's the end of it. A better comparison would be research papers, which are peer reviewed. Other experts examine them to decide whether they're written correctly and the results seem accurate before they're published. If their own work has issues that's irrelevant and should be discussed separately. Attempting to call them out for following accepted protocol is a bad look both there and here. If you don't like being evaluated by the community, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about " being evaluated by the community" as a whole, this is about specific situations: "Attempting to call them out for following accepted protocol is a bad look both there and here"... in the metaphor and here I am talking about bringing up personally (not publically), which I have done but they do not care at all so here I am, after I have literally made improvements. When Student B's papers become of relatively high quality for their subject and significantly higher quality than Student A's and many other student's, Student A ignores this and makes vague assertations to try to get Student B being kicked out of the class?? All I asked was, could you not understand the frustration? Das osmnezz (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd advise against talking about other peoples' work and just focus on your own articles. It isn't helping. If you could commit to creating more articles like Asane Sow or Jamal Iddrissou and less like Ota Yamamoto (only one good source in the article – try to include all important sources in the article rather than putting them on the talk page) I think it would be more helpful. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and this is the point I was trying to make. I did not bring up other users until I changed my articles and then those received vague complaints without elaboration. Again, my point is that only Geschichte was specific about the fundemantal issue and I have addressed it with my new articles (Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira). Again, what you said is my point, and I have internalized what Geschichte said since he was only one being specific with what is a comprehensive article and created these articles to show this. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not to mention anything that other people have done the heavy lifting to clean up because the subjects WERE notable, completely aside from how the article was actually written. A lot of things survive AfD (or avoid nomination entirely) for that reason, when they wouldn't have in their original form.

Also, the above comment seems to dismiss the fact that it's only a partial temporary block (for now) to prevent additional problems from being created while we're still in the act of discussing the existing ones. It's not equivalent to a permanent global indef. There's certainly plenty to be said for the fact that it DID escalate to that point, however. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, only Geschichte was specific about the fundemantal issue and I have addressed it with my new articles. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Again here has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. I have internalized what Geschichte said since he was only one being specific with what is a comprehensive article and created them to show this. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Just flagging this - not just a simple edit conflict , but rather deleting numerous editors' comments. Would appreciate an explanation. GiantSnowman 20:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:, Was that me? I did see an edit conflict when I was trying to respomd earlier and may uninntionaly have accidentally delegted something but I saw in edit history that another editor said they accidentally deleted something. Lmk if it was me. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that was you. An edit conflict should not remove so many edits... GiantSnowman 20:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If he started writing shortly after I left my comment it would be possible, I think. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so - WP:AGF. As you were. GiantSnowman 20:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

His comments keep ending up in odd places too. I think maybe he's making manual edits and creating errors. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, very odd! GiantSnowman 20:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

He's also not signing posts, which is adding to the confusion. @Das osmnezz: please can you sort it out? GiantSnowman 21:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I was responding to new comments where they were located and apologize for confusion. And yeah I added a signing to those comments. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It might be best to use the Reply feature at ANI, it's a very fast-moving noticeboard so you're going to get edit conflicts & other problems pretty regularly if you're editing the page directly - try to avoid it as much as possible. Plus it signs the posts for you, and tells you if there's a new comment whilst you're writing! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not here where you replied to your own week old comment, and in at least one other spot your comment ended up above ones made before yours. Like Blue Sonnet said, try to use the reply button and not edit manually unless you absolutely have to fix something. I rarely have any issues that way. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that is my bad and I genuinely appreciate it. I am not used to public discussions outside of football deletion discussions (for other users) and my talk page (back in the day). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I never thought you were causing it on purpose, it was just strange since this is how most talk pages are set up, regardless of traffic. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I just defaulted to editing section when active on talk page a few years ago (which in hindsight was inconvenient for myself on my part) and for deletion discussions I was mostly contributing my vote. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I would unfortunately support a temporary ban on new article creations, as per ChompyTheGogoat. I have personally tried since 2020 to get this editor to improve their work. It has in fact improved a lot, if you can believe it, but is clearly not yet up to par. I see no reason why this editor could not contribute in other ways, such as editing existing articles or drafts. Hopefully that way they can better understand what goes into the process of creating quality articles. He obviously has a passion for this stuff, but other ways of nudging him to improve have not worked. Again, I will acknowledge his improvements, however small and incremental, but I would also like to see a commitment on his part to study existing articles and understand why his articles have not been up to par, and what he can do to improve. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, considering how long it took just to reduce his refdumping clearly unusable sources at AfD (at least 4-5 years that I've personally witnessed, see e.g. this one from 2022 where I was apparently already frustrated enough to note this pattern, this one in June 2023 where he is explicitly told The Sun is not RS and is directed to WP:THESUN, this one in May 2024 where he listed articles from a WordPress blog, The Daily Mail, and The Sun as RS (including using the same claim he made in the linked 2023 AfD that the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports for a BLP!), and the citations to Vietnamese AI-aggregated articles with ChatGPT images of the subject in June 2026), I am not optimistic about whatever timeline will be necessary to reach basic competence in identifying unreliable sources. And that's not even touching on the continued invocation of a deprecated guideline plus THEREMUSTBESOURCES claims...
EDIT: added some context around the second and third AfDs linked above JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

As I think has been clearly demonstrated multiple times by multiple editors throughout this discussion, DO clearly does not understand notability or proper sourcing, and he clearly will not change his ways. Any promises from him that he is reformed are hollow. GiantSnowman 15:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Many times I have been the only one trying to find sources, I saved many articles that otherwise be deleted and you choose to focus on stuff I have learned from (The Sun) and the AI was a one-time mistake since the source was comprehensive and most articles from that website are written by authors and due to translation errors. For people who care so much about sources, it seems defaulting to delete without looking for sources and getting others to find them is somehoe better than going out of way to find sources which has led to many being saved from deletion.

How are my promises hollow? As I have said many times, All I have asked for was specificities which Geschichte gave. The only person here who was actually specific was Geschichte, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussuon, with even users saying they are much better. And I have committed to what Geschichte said. There has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You clearly did not learn from the issue about citing The Sun when it was brought up in 2023 since you continued citing it with the same inexcusable argument for at least a year after! Why should we trust that your ability to identify non-RS (and SIGCOV) has improved enough that you won't need other editors watching every contribution? JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The amount of AFD's I have saved from deletion vastly outnumber those where I mistakenly cited unsatisfactory sourcing, (on top of which I have learned from, and I do apologize for putting the Sun again that one time). Also I say there are offline or unavailable internet sources for those who already have a couple sources and with more pro league games or other factors as well as played in the pre or early internet era, and which GiantSnowman also uses for these kinds of players sometimes. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also recommend mandating AfC if/when they're allowed to start creating articles again, with a continued ban (at least during a trial period of sorts) against creating in or moving them to mainspace independently. At such time I would also strongly suggest they try creating the drafts as simple stubs initially, with only the minimal information necessary for notability, and share them places like the relevant project to invite collaboration from other editors before submitting them. I think people would feel a lot better about helping out that way, instead of feeling pressured to clean them up AFTER they're already live in order to save them from AfD. This would help get more eyes on subjects who are in fact notable without making such a mess in the process (and maybe improve their comprehension of notability when it's the entire focus). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

How many examples exist of articles he created that needed others to substantially improve them in order to save them from AFD? If he only creates drafts as "simple stubs" they are far more likely to be declined even when notable (many times I've published wrongly-declined drafts that were stubs). Suggesting he should also, for every one of them, before being able to submit them, need to go to projects to "invite collaboration from other editors" isn't a good idea in my opinion; while it might sound good, it is likely that many of the "invitations" would be ignored, and then what? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here @BeanieFan11. If an article needs help from others to save it from AfD (whether by incorporating sources on the Talk, or researching on their own), it's not ready for mainspace. It can be improved in draft space, which is why that exists.

If you or any other editor stumbles on it in draft space and thinks, "Hey, I can show subject X is notable", you're welcome to. There is no reason it has to be in mainspace if sourcing doesn't show it's ready to be. There is no issue with incubating them in draft space, especially since someone creating in mainspace will be made aware of the draft. There are other editors who rush to create subpar articles and they're under restrictions stricter than seem to be under consideration for @Das osmnezz. I help that editor because their subjects are ones I'm familiar with.You know I'm not fluent in sports from the times I've pinged you for source and other help, so unfortunately I can't help DO. I'm not sure why others would ignore their requests for input. Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is generally I don't think his articles are so poor that they need editors to improve them to save them from AFD. I don't agree with the suggestion he should make the drafts as stubs (I would also strongly suggest they try creating the drafts as simple stubs initially) and then have to go to others (invite collaboration from other editors before submitting them) before being able to submit them. It would make more sense in my view for him to just create drafts similar in quality to, e.g. Jamal Iddrissou, and then submit those. Of course he can go to others for assistance if he wants, but I don't think it should be needed (I question how effective it would be to start draft stubs and ask others to expand them in contrast to just starting drafts like Iddrissou and submitting. In fact I don't even support restricting him to AFC – removing autopatrolled is enough in my opinion). I think his articles are being described as worse than they actually are. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of few rational ones here. The only "proof" of problems with my articles after what Geschichte said is GiantSnowman's vague assertations. Geschichte is only person here who was actually specific, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira during this discussion, since I realized the specifities and followed through (as I have done in the past with previous specifities), with even users saying they are much better (which was completely ignored by others who continue to make vague assertations and completely ignore them). Also I used to make stubs with a few sigcov sources but was criticzed for that, hence changing my article style. There is no winning. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

My intention with that suggestion (not requirement) was to get them to focus on JUST notability at first, so they can better understand the minimum requirement for it, and then expand with additional content. Asking for help would (at least in theory) help them get more one on one feedback as far as whether that burden is met, with specific suggestions if it's not - possibly by editors with an interest in the same subject matter who are familiar with the type of sources available. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You do understand that notability isn't the only valid reason for declining drafts, correct? That's the entire issue here - by and large the subjects DO seem to qualify, and it's appropriate for them to have articles, but articles have to meet a minimum standard for writing and especially sourcing before they're ready for mainspace. If yours are getting declined on a regular basis it sounds like you're also having difficulty with that. If DO asks for help and no one answers there are three options - trying submitting it as is, keep working on it, or wait. The idea is just to try to improve them when possible to increase their chances of getting accepted, not to have some kind of "pre review". That's why it's a suggestion, not a restriction. If and when they manage to actually get a handle on how to write well supported articles, they'll fly through AfC and help won't be necessary. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I don't want to speak for @BeanieFan11 but re: If yours are getting declined on a regular basis it sounds like you're also having difficulty with that. I am fairly positive they mean they find drafts created by other editors and move them. Not they they move their own declined drafts. As far as I've ever experienced, @BeanieFan11's articles have not been an issue. Star Mississippi 12:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to drafts started by others that I published. @ChompyTheGogoat What I am not seeing is sufficient evidence that his articles regularly fail to meet the minimum standard. They could be better, but as far as I can tell generally they are not so poor that they need to be moved to draftspace or taken to AFD. In fact his recent ones, such as Asane Sow or Jamal Iddrissou, look nice. There would be more than 2/1000 deleted and more than five articles he started out of many hundreds this year being in draftspace if his ability to make minumum-standard articles was as poor as you have made it out to be. Just to be clear, I do support removing autopatrolled, but not a ban on creating articles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah as I have said many times above, I created Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussuon after I received specific advice, with users saying they are much better (which was completely ignored by others who continue to make vague assertations and completely ignore them). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize for misunderstanding. I thought you meant that you disagreed with reviewers on your own drafts.

I maintain that I believe most of the articles avoid deletion because the subjects are notable and do deserve to be on Wikipedia, but Das' fundamental misunderstanding of how sourcing works is an issue that won't be solved by patrolling. They need to spend some time working more collaboratively to get a better grasp on it. Creating articles for these people is a valuable contribution in general, and my hope is that a return to basics would allow them to eventually do so in a way that doesn't make other editors feel obligated to go around fixing their articles. It's one thing to do so now and then for new editors who are still getting the hang of things, but this long on this scale creates a lot of additional work. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I used to write with more "color" which was criticized and now I write like this which has not been criticized and link articles in my writing too (like certain seasons, etc). And yeah I have addressed the sourcing by expanding my articles and using most to all signifciant secondary coverage of the player. Das osmnezz (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the most recent contributions. At Idjessi Metsoko, DO referenced the following sentence with the following source:

• Following good performances for Spartak Trnava, Metsoko would be selected to be a part of the [[Togo national football team]] ahead of a friendly against [[Guinea national football team|Guinea]].
• Following good performances for Spartak Trnava, Metsoko would be selected to be a part of the [[Togo national football team]] ahead of a friendly against [[Guinea national football team|Guinea]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://isport.blesk.cz/clanek/fotbal-domaci-souteze-chance-narodni-liga/442511/hvezdy-vyskova-zlobi-bayo-je-v-becku-metsokovi-se-nedari-musi-pridat.html|title=Hvězdy Vyškova zlobí: Bayo je v béčku, Metsokovi se nedaří. Musí přidat|trans-title=Stars make Vyškov angry: Bayo is in B, Metsoka is not doing well. He must add|language=cz|publisher=[[Blesk]]|date=26 January 2024|access-date=10 July 2026}}</ref>

The Czech source is from 26 January 2024, two years before the callup in question. It understandably doesn't have anything to do with that March 2026 callup, but rather states: "Fresh Togolese representative Idjessi Metsoko (21), who grew up in football at French AJ Auxerre, scored nine goals in the first half of the competition and attracted the attention of better clubs. He is in the sights of a number of first-league teams, including Viktoria Plzeň, which has already brought Souaré from Vyškov and previously defender Sampson Dweh". What is going on here? A bit of stress that caused misplacement, perhaps? Geschichte (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, Blesk is a tabloid and considered generally unreliable by the bad refs script I use. I don't know if this is still applicable to their current ownership, but caution is still warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This mis-use of sources (and POV, "good" performance???) is very concerning. GiantSnowman 11:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not add the "good performance" part and I make sure to not add POV. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case at least they're correct. Inserted by a user now blocked for copyvio. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. GiantSnowman 17:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrolled or no

Separate from the discussion of a page creation ban, why on earth is Das osmnezz still autopatrolled given the failures of source/text integrity and the demonstratably weak grasp of reliable sources documented above? Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. GiantSnowman 11:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not add the "good performance" part and I make sure to not add POV... the source was misplaced and I can remove it if needed. In fact I have noticed even many high level players tend not to have many comprehensive sources. I am very passionate about finding and adding compregensive sources. For example, Josh Nisbet has very few sources and I have found a ton of long news profiles of him and I am planning to edit him and many others with comprehensive sources.

For people who care so much about sources, for AFD it seems defaulting to delete without looking for sources and getting others to find them is somehow better than going out of way to find sources

As I have said many times above, all I wanted was specificities which Geschichte gave. The only person here who was actually specific was Geschichte, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussuon, with even users saying they are much better. And I have committed to what Geschichte said. There has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There has not been one time where someone was very specific with their complaints and I ignored them. ............ JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

For specific ideas ppl told me for improving my own articles - off top of head, writing longer articles and focusing on secondary coverage in sources, not writing nationality of club if player has played in same country entire career, adding links to pages in article like seasons, using less "flowery" language, citing sources a specific way, and what Geschichte said, all of which I adhered to. And I stopped using the Sun a while back either way. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I imagine that will be addressed when consensus emerges from this discussion. The current page creation ban while this discussion continues render autopatrolled moot. Star Mississippi 14:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

In that case, I oppose a topic ban on creating pages or even forcing DO to go through AfC, but I support revocation of autopatrolled. The problems reported here are not severe enough to warrant such a severe sanction, but it seems clear that DO's work is not up to the autopatrolled standard and would benefit from review by patrollers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you think the PREVENTATIVE goal of disciplinary action would be served by allowing them to continue creating low quality articles, push them to mainspace, and then wait for them to get patrolled so other people can either work to bring them up to snuff or file AfD? Isn't that basically just what's happening now? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As someone who has run into DO and their work on several occasions at AfD, I think enough of their articles are sufficiently low-quality or of sufficiently questionable notability to warrant patrolling, but not so low-quality or so deficient in notability as to impose the more draconian measure of a ban on new page creation. And it's different from what's happening now because their current work only gets patrolled when people like those in this discussion go looking for it instead of having it served up to all new page patrollers, and because their work currently gets indexed for search engines without patroller intervention. Revoking autopatrolled addresses that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

support revocation of autopatrolled, in addition to the support of topic ban, obviously. GiantSnowman 17:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I still think that's too much "fix problems after the fact" for my liking. Ideally NPP should be more of a safety net to catch things that slip through, not a replacement for AfC when problems are already known to exist. If there's not a consensus for a continued ban on page creation I'd support mandated AfC as an alternative, but not allowing them to continue pushing pages to mainspace, until their acceptance rate is high enough to justify restoring that ability. That would demonstrate clear improvement based on feedback from impartial reviewers. My main concern with that is that denials can be frustrating and demoralizing, especially after creating so many articles before, and I think working to expand existing articles would help give them broader experience outside of this hyperspecific focus they've had. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As I have said many times above, all I wanted was specificities which Geschichte gave. The only person here who was actually specific was Geschichte, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Gonçalo Oliveira during this discussuon, with even users saying they are much better (and everyone else avoided this and continued to make vague assertations). And I have committed to what Geschichte said. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Far, far too many times someone has a range of problems (Let's call them A through Z) and they will ask for specifics. Someone, trying to be helpful, will describe problem 'A' in detail. The problem editor then addresses problem 'A' and says everything is now fine. But problems B through Z remain. When people resist giving specifics they often have good reason. MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

To increase miscommunication its best for people (and that includes me) to be specific of what they want. Geschichte was able to, and if I wanted to talk about seemingly "broad" issues about a user, I could be specific about it. Geschichte is only person here who was actually specific, which literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira during this discussion, since I realized the specifities and followed through (as I have done in the past with previous specifities), with even users saying they are much better (which was completely ignored by others who continue to make vague assertations and completely ignore them). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Numerous editors advised you not to create any new articles during this discussion. You ignored them and continued to the point that your account had to be blocked from article creation. You have not dealt with that issue.

Numerous editors have raised a long history of creating poorly written and/or non-notable articles. You have not dealt with that issue.

Numerous editors asked you not to say "well yeah but what other editors". You ignored them. You have not dealt with that issue.

You also made some very odd edits in your replies here, not signing comments, placing comments in the middle of others', and (inadvertently, seemingly) removing other editors' comments. That rings some small WP:CIR alarm bells.

This discussion has been ongoing for 10 days and you have not dealt with a single issue raised. Your conduct worsened to the point where it had to be partially blocked. You seem unable to self-reflect on your own conduct or the concerns of others. GiantSnowman 20:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"Numerous editors advised you not to create any new articles during this discussion. You ignored them and continued to the point that your account had to be blocked from article creation" - I did it to show how I could adapt to specific improvements. I am sure this discussion would be going on much worse if I had not done that. There is no winning.

"Numerous editors have raised a long history of creating poorly written and/or non-notable articles. You have not dealt with that issue" - I addressed those specifically and shown improvmenrts over the years and shown improvements now, with Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira.

"Numerous editors asked you not to say "well yeah but what other editors". You ignored them. You have not dealt with that issue" - I did this after I improved and made my point multiple times but they were completely ignored.

"This discussion has been ongoing for 10 days and you have not dealt with a single issue raised. Your conduct worsened to the point where it had to be partially blocked"... I responded, to no avail, then I created a few articles to show how I could adapt to specific improvements, which people praised, which was completely ignored, there is no winning. If doing by showing not telling is not "dealing" with it, then what is?

"You seem unable to self-reflect on your own conduct or the concerns of others"

I have been doing that the entire time. Hence my improvements over the years and creation of Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, Goncalo Oliveira. Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You've repeated the "literally led to me creating Jamal Iddrissou, Asane Sow, ..." mantra 15+ times in this discussion, it should be clear by now that people are not persuaded by examples of you creating articles that might meet our bare minimum expectations only after someone in this discussion suggested some incredibly obvious ways to improve sourcing. That you keep bringing these up makes me even more concerned that you will just latch onto "5-7 sources cited in the article" as some sort of bright-line quality threshold while still being unable to consistently identify SIGCOV and unreliable sources. JoelleJay (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

DO, stop saying that 1) you've improved and/or 2) you are being ignored, given that multiple editors have repeatedly told you it's not good enough. This is getting into WP:IDHT and therefore WP:CIR territory. GiantSnowman 17:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

1. To JoelleJay, you literally said "The 5-7 sources should be secondary SIGCOV (or close to it) sources, not transactional or match report sources" after Geschicte, which I took on board, I never said "latch onto "5-7 sources cited in the article" as some sort of bright-line quality threshold while still being unable to consistently identify SIGCOV and unreliable sources"... in fact, I identified sources in those articles purely based on secondary SIGCOV (or close to it) and reliability and independence.

2. To GiantSnowman, I have been ignored since those articles were glossed over for vague assertations or misconstruing my points like above, when I have identified sources in those articles purely based on SIGCOV, reliability, independence. This is getting into WP:IDHT and thus WP:CIR territory. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop parroting what others say about you back to them. It makes you look petulant and like you don't have a clue... GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I would not have to if my points were not ignored or misconstrued. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Please let the discussion run its course. You don't need to leave so many comments. I don't think its helping. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

This is good advice. Please listen to BF, DO. GiantSnowman 20:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this sometimes can be true but tbf its natural to respond to a Wikipedia public discussion about oneself and I think without I would have been even more misconstrued if I did not respond. I will try to respond less and will respond if I feel misconstrued or if addressed. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but the way you have been responding is not natural. GiantSnowman 17:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, I think without I would have been even more misconstrued if I did not respond. and will respond if I feel misconstrued or if addressed. Das osmnezz (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't forget claiming that sources added to talk pages counted towards notability. They've been here how long? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I used to make stubs with a few sigcov sources but was criticzed for that, hence changing my article style. I was actually told about the Refideas function to add by another editor a while back since they said my articles had "too much sources". That is one of many specific advice I have received over the years that completely goes against other specific advice. There is no winning. Finally, Geschicte said something actually specific here that I literally took on board during the discussion to apply to my articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding sources to the talk page is completely fine. The template "refideas" exists for that sole purpose. It's better to use all relevant sources in the article of course (as long as its not refbombing), but there's nothing wrong with listing additional sources on the talk page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In general, absolutely - what I take issue with is claiming that they support notability when the actual cited sources are inadequate. As far as I'm aware they don't count as supporting an article in any way until/unless they're added as citations; they're only suggestions. That could be useful at AfD to save the article by adding them, but it's another CIR issue. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Saying that sources on the talk page show notability is not a CIR issue. It would of course be better for such sources to be in the article, but its ridiculous to say someone lacks competence because they said sources on the talk page show notability. But aside from that, how many examples do you even have of this happening? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The concern here (as I've stated) is not whether or not their subjects are actually notable, but whether they themselves are capable of evaluating and including necessary SIGCOV. When concerns were raised in this discussion to that note, they said they'd added other sources to the talk pages. If those are the best sources, they should be used within the article. I won't pretend to know how often it happened because I'm only basing this on their own words. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with BF on this, kinda. Whilst it would be better to have sources in the article, nothing wrong with having them on talk page - although we would have to ask why, if you bother to find the sources, you do not add them to the article... GiantSnowman 16:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, I used to make stubs with a few sigcov and other sources but was criticzed for that and was told about Refideas function to add by another editor a while back since they said my articles had "too much sources", hence changing my article style and putting a couple in the article and some on talk page. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've made a section re: their autopatrolled status so consensus can form as to that and/or need for AfC. I have no opinion on either myself. The block implemented during this discussion was an admin action meant for the length of the discussion, not a reflection on consensus as none is/was present. Star Mississippi 01:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Support revocation of Autopatrolled. This mostly based on IMO autopatrolled has/should have a very high bar and otherwise does more harm than good. Unless that much-higher-than-the=average editor bar is met, they should be a regular editor in this respect. And I don't see that here. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've removed autopatrolled from Das osmnezz. It's clear from this section and the above discussion that trust in their article creations has been lost. An indefinite ban from creating new articles has also been proposed, but I'm not closing that discussion here. Fences&Windows 13:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Good decision. GiantSnowman 17:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Moving to closure

We've had 2 weeks of discussion and 2 lots of interim remedies. I think we have exhausted what can be said. Can an admin review and make a call please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Posting to prevent archiving whilst this remains unresolved. GiantSnowman 10:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I was thinking of directly notifying an admin since day 3, considering he has been doing this since 2017. Fence127 (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

please log into your primary account @Fence127. See WP:PROJSOCK for more guidance. Star Mississippi 16:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi:, is Fence127 an alternative account of someone already contributing to this discussion? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Read what I put below yesterday. Hope that helps. Fence127 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so @Das osmnezz, but I'm not a CU. @Fence127 final warning. You do not have the experience necessary and are being disruptive. If this continues you will be blocked from project space. Star Mississippi 00:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I replied with my old temporary account before switching to a full account. Fence127 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Uninvolved administrator comment: Somewhat out of the blue, I was contacted about this discussion, presumably because Toolforge was showing me as active at the time. Among these options – a topic ban from page creations, requirement to use AfC, a custom restriction, or endorsing removal of autopatrol – the only one that seems to have consensus (or at least no opposition) is the last one, loss of autopatrol. I don't see much agreement on anything else, and the amount of tangents and bickering makes it hard to determine what other consensus, if any, there may be. As things stand, I'd consider the autopatrol removal approved, lift the current p-block, and issue Das osmnezz a formal last warning to shape up. Unfortunately there is no p-block option to prevent page creation in mainspace only (e.g. to enforce mandatory AfC); if there were, I'd suggest that as a compromise. Sorry I couldn't be any more help. SuperMarioMan (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Even if it can't be implemented as a technical block, it can still be done as a community ban if there's adequate consensus, with additional sanctions revisited if it's violated, correct? Isn't that how TBANs are often handled when they're too nuanced for technical blocks? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Seems like much of said bickering was caused or at least exacerbated by Das osmnezz themselves, considering their signature appears a whopping 53 times in this section, mostly to repeat the same points or haggle about details. WP:BLUDGEON very much comes to mind and is certainly an essay DO should... probably just print out and tape to a wall next to their monitor, even if they walk away from this without major sanctions. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, DO was repeatedly advised not to do what they repeatedly kept on doing, even when that advice was from one of the few people who supported them...WP:IDHT/WP:CIR issues, for real. GiantSnowman 20:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Like I said above, I am sure I would have been even more misconstrued (WP:IDHT/WP:CIR issues, for real) if I did not respond, and will respond if I feel misconstrued or if addressed. I have seldom responded to those who are not misconstruing or addressing me. Lastly, no shade to anybody here. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edit-warring, ownership behavior, and refusal to accept consensus by user:Épine

Épine (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)

Relevant links

• Noticeboard discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of sources: action.allout.org and 24heures.ch
• Diffs of recent article reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• Diffs of talk page harassment: 1, 2

Briefly: I'm requesting administrative intervention regarding a persistent pattern of disruptive edit-warring, article ownership (WP:OWN), and an explicit refusal to accept community consensus by user:Épine.

1. Refusal to Accept Explicit Noticeboard Consensus

A recent thread at RSN regarding a "Kurdish pride flag" graphic (which was created by Épine) ended in a clear consensus that the sources completely fail to verify the file. The participating users agreed that the first source is just user-generated content per WP:UGC, and that trying to validate an unverified claim using a background element from a news photo is a clear WP:OR. Furthermore, users who checked the full text of the second source confirmed it only describes a standard rainbow flag with no mention of a Kurdish variant, meaning the source explicitly fails verification per WP:V. Following the conclusion of this discussion, I proceeded to remove the unverified file and sources. But even after I explicitly pointed to the WP:RSN in my edit summaries, Épine immediately mass-reverted across multiple articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), claiming the sources successfully prove the claim. This is a direct and deliberate defiance of the community consensus established at RSN; These edit reverts come after a previous discussion already decided to remove the file, but Épine just put it back into the articles without even reopening a discussion on the disputed topic. And now, even after multiple users reached a clear consensus, he went ahead and reverted my edits anyway, completely ignoring everyone.

2. Prior Pattern of User Talkpage Disruption

This user's non-collaborative conduct extends beyond mainspace articles. Épine previously targeted my personal user talk page with persistent, disruptive reversions and boundary-pushing (1, 2), which necessitated direct intervention by an administrator who told him to cease interacting with my talk page (Correction: the exact edit summary was actually: "they are absolutely allowed to remove notifications - see WP:BLANKING").

3. Cross-Wiki Pattern of Disruptive Editing

This behavior is part of a regular global pattern for him; he was also blocked on the Central Kurdish Wikipedia (ckb.wikipedia) for doing the exact same thing—mass-reverting consensus edits and edit-warring against local admins.

Conclusion: User:Épine is operating under a clear pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, prioritizing personal attachment to a file description over core content policies including WP:V and WP:NOR. This user thinks that anyone who doesn't like what they like can be unhesitatingly labeled as homophobic (as they did to me here, where he simply called me homophobic), and they maintain zero assume good faith toward other users. He doesn't even respect or listen to administrators; he went as far as opening a complaint against the ckb.wikipedia admins on Meta just because 'they wouldn't allow him to push this exact unsourced file' that I mentioned here. Zemen ✧ 15:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

These two diffs of "talk page harassment" are two warnings about our WP:OUTING policy. The information - whatever it is - I can't see it - was later redacted and you apologised for posting it. These warnings seem entirely proper. Morwen (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

n.b noticed they were added back after you removed them. this isn't cool and they were properly informed that people are allowed to remove these notices from their talk page, but it's also not true that "an administrator who told him to cease interacting with my talk page" did this. Morwen (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen: I want to clarify that I did not apologize for acting in bad faith (and I made it very clear there was no bad intention behind that WP:OUTING). I only included those diffs to prove this user's long-standing habit of mass-reverting edits. In fact, this user did the exact same thing to my own privacy right after my mistake, which I have already raised on Meta. Whatever the warning is, it's my right to remove it from my own page. I thought "they are absolutely allowed to remove notifications - see WP:BLANKING" (the admin's edit summary) meant an order for Épine to stop reverting my edits on my own talk page. Zemen ✧ 15:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

an administrator who told him to cease interacting with my talk page, which is what you said initially, is very different to an order for Épine to stop reverting my edits on my own talk page. The former would be something resembling an WP:IBAN. Sorry if I misread your comments over at Rosguill's talk page and you did not in fact apologise. Morwen (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the distinction now and apologize for the confusion; Sometimes I make mistakes in understanding those phrases. I have gone back and struck that error in my original statement to clarify that it was actually a reminder about WP:BLANKING, not a formal IBAN. Thank you for clarifying. Zemen ✧ 16:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

These two editors have been at each other's throats over this Kurdistan Pride flag dispute since March. I agreed with Zemen's position regarding the inclusion of the image at Human rights in the Kurdistan Region, and epine's decision to reinstate the flag without discussion after an RfC is very bad form (although the two new sources they cite do merit consideration on the talk page and may present a basis for the flag's inclusion). However, I'm also concerned that Zemen appears to be hounding epine over this, at one point even adding an image to Commons which was literally just epine's preferred Pride flag, crossed out (since deleted), and created a userbox incorporating it (). Their response when I (and epine) objected that this was crossing the line into harrassment was If you don't like seeing the word "holy" and believe that removing it solves the problem, please just remove it (n.b., no reading of our comments could be taken as an objection to the use of the word "holy"). I think we're at the point where sanctions on both of these editors need to be considered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill: You can take any action against me—block me or whatever, I will respect your decision—I will gladly walk away from editing in this wiki and abandon the articles I'm preparing, as long as this flag issue is finally resolved. A user is repeatedly pushing a disputed file without returning to discussion, and completely getting away with it. He is currently blocked on Kurdish Wikipedia for this exact behavior, where he even went as far as calling an admin "st*pid"! Creating that userbox and the crossed-out flag was purely out of sheer frustration because nothing was being done about his ongoing violations. Zemen ✧ 15:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Just a comment, but this ANI report by itself shows a few AISIGNS. To remind you, if you have been using AI, doing so is prohibited and there have been far too many cases of editors lying about AI usage, those cases usually lead to indefs (or in one case, a CBAN). If you aren't using AI, that's fine and you can disregard this message. Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

How has no one thought of the possibility that Zemen's responses here are AI-generated~2026-38774-04 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Or partially. It's based on the formatting and the lack of links in the replies and the vocabulary (e.g. I want to clarify...)Maybe it is the result of machine translation? I am not sure. Actually, I believe it is either machine translation or just plain non-native English speaker showing?~2026-38774-04 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-38774-04 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No. You have to keep in mind that as AI exposure gets more and more widespread, the characteristic way it formats text is going to be adopted by larger numbers of people. You have to pay attention to the content itself, which is has no AI characteristics as far as I can tell. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Look at my last edit before coming to here, you can see I spent nearly 5 hours writing that whole text. Your comment was honestly very hurtful considering my effort :( but anyway.. you have every right to doubt everything. Zemen ✧ 16:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Did not read this when writing my comment on possible AISIGNS, sorry.

On an unrelated note, I was randomly logged out when trying to reply to this and for some reason my IP is globally blocked??? Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

slight correction: IP range Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

completely uninvolved here but just having a look at ANI for "fun" and ive had this where ive been logged out halfway through an edit and given an autoblock maybe worth taking to technical. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have observed the same pattern on my end too. épine _♬ 09:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

logged at the technical village pump Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 09:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

People should read this article. Just because some people write like we all wrote formally historically, doesn't mean they're AI as AI was trained on that kind of writing. Canterbury Tail talk 17:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

fwiw, that article neither sounds like AI -- like, in the slightest -- which just nukes its whole argument from jump, nor does it line up with both research on "formal" AI writing versus formal human writing in the same context (including comparisons to various national dialects of English) and the existing writing by Kenyan people that can be seen on the Internet including on Wikipedia. it's a misinformed article and people should stop linking to it

that being said, this particular post doesn't really do the stuff that AI-generated comments do nor is it all that different than their pre-2023 ones Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate @Rosguill and @Morwen cutting through the noise here, because this report isn't a good-faith dispute about sources or Wikipedia policy. It’s the climax of a massive, cross-wiki crusade Zemen has been running against me for months over a personal ideological grievance.

If anyone wants to see where this actually started, can trace it back to ckb wiki. Zemen didn’t show up complaining about reliable sources; he explicitly asked: do you think the use of the pride flag and the holy Kurdish flag is an appropriate thing? Right off the bat, this was never about WP:V. He just personally finds the flag disrespectful and wants it gone.

When he couldn't win the argument on content, he turned to hounding. He accused me of sock-puppetry on Commons just to push a deletion nomination through. After getting warned for that, he promised he would keep trying to get the file censored "even in ten years". True to his word, as Rosguill pointed out, he later a harassment graphic of the same pride flag with a big red X across it, attaching it to a userbox about keeping "ideology" away from the "holy Kurdish flag." The same admin who warned him earlier ended up handing him a two-week block for harassment.

Knowing his history of retaliation, it's obvious why he opened an RSN thread without pinging or notifying me. He forum-shopped for a default judgment while I was out of the room, and then ran to ANI to cry "edit warring" when I reverted an edit I had no idea was backed by a stealth discussion. He has been forum-shopping everywhere he can get an audience, including Rosguill's talk page, deliberately keeping me in the dark so I can't defend my edits.

Just look at his own reply in this thread: he literally says he will gladly accept a block "as long as this flag issue is finally resolved." That is the textbook definition of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has an overt personal stake in erasing a symbol used by a queer minority in a hostile region, and he is trying to weaponize this noticeboard to finish the job. épine _♬ 00:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this not the notification that was required? Morwen (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen, I was talking about the separate RSN thread he linked. épine _♬ 00:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

oh i see - sorry. (I should probaly get some sleep...) Morwen (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

So the issue I see is that these are two different problems. @Épine I understand you want to promote the use of this flag but this falls within WP:RGW. We need reliable sources that actually say something about the flag. That means not WP:UGC and that means not a photograph of a crowd that contains the image of the flag in an article that entirely fails to mention the flag or even Kurdish people. If, on the other hand, @Zemen is hounding you because of their personal distaste for the flag, that is also not OK. However Zemen doing something wrong does not mean we should be breaking WP:V to include discussion of the flag based on UGC and OR. I would suggest you step back from any efforts to include the flag pending the identification of reliable sources that discuss it in some way. And Zemen maybe needs a one-way iban from Épine based on them getting a block on commons for intimidation and then following Épine here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This is my reply to Épine's comments 'clearly and neutrally': I acknowledge that in the past, I handled my frustrations regarding this content dispute poorly, and I served my block for those actions, but Épine, you know how my blocking situation and yours are different, right? (and simply, how do you see the difference between a six-month block versus a two-week block?) Bringing up ancient history isn't going to change the current situation. What actually matters right now is why you think two unreliable sources (one of which was written just 10 days ago) prove a flag that was created by you years ago, and keep adding them back to the articles? Editors who don't even know me or you explained this very well at RSN. If you disagree, you can freely open a new section instead of constantly reverting users' edits and edit warring. Also, why should you be notified at RSN? ​Do you think you own the sources or the articles, that I need to give you a warning about? Nobody owns anything, Épine. Unlike ANI, where the system explicitly says: "When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page", I didn't see anything like that on RSN. Even if I had notified you, you'd probably just delete and ignore it (prove: 1, 2). I also mentioned the RSN in my edit summaries; can anyone really not tell the difference between RSN and RS? Saying when I reverted an edit is very boldfaced, there is a history, and everyone can see whether it was just one or not. Épine, what is the problem with using "holy"? most users on the ckb wiki simply used this phrase before, this is a common way of speaking. At the very least, I used "holy", but I would never use "st*pid" toward admins, like you did. Zemen ✧ 10:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Your two-week commons block was initiated on July 1, 2026. It's hardly ancient history. Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

And I think I need to point you to WP:BRIE. I agree that the sources provided for the flag are insufficient and that it should not be included where it was based on those sources. However this seems to be the en.wp flashpoint in a conflict that has gone all the way to a WMF UCOC review in addition to leading to your very recent and still active block, for harassment, on Commons. What made you think it was a good idea to pursue an editor to en.wp while you were blocked for harassing them on Commons? I think you need to immediately disengage from this conflict. Other, uninvolved, editors, including myself are aware of the situation and have given advice to Épine. At this point, you continuing to escalate this situation, in light of what's going on at other wikis, is a bad look. I don't care if you think the Kurdish flag has religious significance. My commentary was only a review of sources and an assertion that the sources provided for review did not, in fact, meet en.wp standards. Should reliable sources be presented I would be entirely unsympathetic to attempts to keep that flag off-wiki on the basis that some editors see it as sacrilegious.Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

By ancient history I was referring to Épine's comment about my past behavior from years ago, claiming that I didn't show up complaining about reliable sources. My personal views or actions from years ago are completely irrelevant now. It does not change the fact that the flag in question is a user-made, fictional graphic lacking reliable sources. So excuse any awkward phrasing, as I'm not very good at setting up sentences. I also want to clarify that I have never been blocked for harassment anywhere on any project, and please look into this more carefully. The administrator who issued that block did not review the situation thoroughly, but because it did not matter to me at the time, I chose not to pursue or appeal it. I have never harassed anyone, In reality, I am the one being harassed, Épine has openly labeled me a "homophobic" user on-wiki and has even referred to the ckb.wikipedia administrators as "stupid". You don't care about a religious flag, me neither, no one can accuse me of that. Zemen ✧ 15:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It's clear the flag is not "made up" as it does appear in the photo from 24 heures. I don't think that's significant enough for Wikipedia to say anything about the flag from a WP:V perspective. But it is trivial to confirm that the flag is a real thing in the world. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was the editor who read the 24 heures article. It contains an image of a crowd that included a Kurdish variant pride flag but none of the article text discusses the flag or Kurdish people at all. The article was in French and behind a paywall but I was able to get a gift link and I read French which made me relatively suited to validate that source. It failed validation. It's a bit alarming that Épine seems unable to understand that an image existing without description or context is not sufficient for Wikipedia to create a description. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223, thank your comments. Based on your comments and Rosguill’s comments before, I’ve continued to search for more suitable sources and will continue doing so. Unfortunately, it’s challenging to be productive when a crusading campaign follows you project to project.

  I also really appreciate you seeing the wider context here. Zemen brushing off a Commons block for harassment and intimidation that started on July 1st as "ancient history" perfectly illustrates what I am dealing with.

  This stopped being a content dispute months ago. This is a sustained, cross-wiki campaign of hounding. Zemen explicitly stated on ckb.wiki a year ago that they would pursue the censorship of this specific file "even in ten years." Since then, they have tracked me across projects, uploaded a version of the flag with a red X through it to Commons just to mock me, and are currently coordinating off-wiki to accuse me of sock-puppetry (as Zemen had done in his deletion campaign on Commons).

  When I try to defend myself locally, involved admins hit me with retaliatory blocks (like the 6-month block Zemen is weaponizing above, which two uninvolved admins have explicitly called unacceptable, and which is currently sitting at the U4C).

  I am exhausted. I strongly support your suggestion of a one-way interaction ban (WP:IBAN). I just want to edit in peace without being followed across the internet by someone with a declared, decade-long vendetta against me. épine _♬ 14:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: Regarding the comments about following, the interaction between us has not been one-sided. Épine has actively monitored my activity and followed me to engage across multiple projects; First: on Commons I requested autopatrol rights so that I could edit two specific files, but Épine intervened and left negative comments to oppose my request. Second: They requested a Commons administrator to delete a file I created, an action that had no direct relevance to them and was done solely out of malice. Third: In retaliation for what they claimed was a 'homophobic stance' on my part against their flag they deliberately targeted and attacked a file that I uploaded. Fourth: On Meta-Wiki, they filed a CheckUser request against two accounts they suspected were linked to my account, simply because one user voted 'keep' on a file request of mine, and the other user agreed with one of my comments on the ckb.wikipedia. Fifth: On WP:ANI, Épine left comments opposing me without even understanding what the underlying issue was. They had no involvement in that situation whatsoever; it was purely an act of hounding intended to damage my standing across multiple Wikimedia projects. Zemen ✧ 15:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Épine is not blocked from editing commons for harassment. You are. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. There is a fundamental difference between participating in project governance and actively hounding an editor across wikis.

  To clarify Zemen's narrative for uninvolved editors:

  The CheckUser and Commons reports: The Meta CheckUser request Zemen is complaining about was entirely successful and caught a sockpuppet abusing multiple accounts, who was subsequently blocked for outing and compounding violations. Participating in standard user-right discussions, reporting copyright violations, and filing successful CheckUser requests to protect project integrity is not "hounding."

  The file deletion: The file Zemen references was a fictional flag they uploaded and inserted into ckb:کوردانی ئیسرائیل purely in retaliation for the Kurdish pride flag's inclusion elsewhere—a textbook violation of WP:POINT.

  Zemen is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks because they are treating Wikipedia as a personal battlefield. In his own deletion nominations on Commons, he repeatedly frames this in terms of "who won and who lost." I am not playing a game with him, and I completely agree with the @Simonm223 here: he needs to immediately and completely disengage. épine _♬ 15:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why are you lying, Épine? That is entirely untrue. I uploaded that flag 3 years ago, long before I even knew you existed or what you were uploading on Commons. The file sat peacefully in that article for 2 years. You only went after my file recently, acting in retaliation because I began questioning the lack of reliable sources for your own flag graphic. The timeline proves this was not a WP:POINT violation on my part. Zemen ✧ 15:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 So why was Épine blocked for six months on the Kurdish Wikipedia? Zemen ✧ 15:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  That matter is before the UCOC panel and an investigation into it has been accepted by the authorities there for possible misuse of admin tools. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: 1-way IBAN for Zemen from epine

I think that the above exchanges sufficiently attest to and demonstrate that a 1-way IBAN is necessary here, noting with concern that there are shadows of RGW that may make this insufficient, but given that Zemen has an extended editing history I think this is a more appropriate place to start. I note that per WP:CT/KURD, an uninvolved admin may unilaterally impose such or other sanctions at any time. I think that the issues with epine's reintroduction of disputed content can currently be best addressed through normal content-based discussion, and if need be can be revisited as a behavioral concern down the road if issues persist. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - per my summary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I tend to prefer the least invasive possible sanction and, in this case, that means disinviting Zemen from engaging with Épine. This conflict has become a morass of problems across multiple wikis. We can say no thank you to it here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support please and thank you.épine _♬ 15:59, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• This was my previous statement: You can take any action against me, as long as this flag issue is finally resolved. @Rosguill The file is still in Human rights in the Kurdistan Region. Zemen ✧ 16:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
  • This is in fact not a negotiation, and we are not bound to give you something you want in exchange for anything we decide to do. Morwen (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

    No one is viewing this as a negotiation. I was simply emphasizing that I'm willing to accept any administrative action taken against me, so long as the encyclopedia is ultimately kept clean of unsourced files. Zemen ✧ 16:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

    The way you're wrote it is confusing then. You're saying that you're permit condition X as long some other condition Y is met. But while you're not seem to be in control of neither of them, it looks like some confusing negotiation indeed, as if you're claiming that you're actually do control it, and your permission is required. What would happen if "this flag issue" will not be "finally resolved"? It could be read as if you're wouldn't be "willing to accept any administrative action taken against you" then anymore, but why it matters? Likely it was unintended, but it reads as if you're implying that your "unwillingness" is do matter for some unknown reason, so condition you're had set is better to be met. Probably require some fix in wording to clear a confusion out. ~2026-39002-96 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not setting conditions. My only concern is the lack of sources. Zemen ✧ 14:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

    Concern is an underlying reason, it could be perfectly reasonable on its own, just it's not the thing currently discussed in this branch. That you do wrote could be likely read as a something that is a setting of conditions (I don't think you're actually meant that, so I'm writing it).

    You can take any action against me (X), as long as this flag issue is finally resolved (Y) is hardly could be read as something that is not along the lines of "I will accept/permit X, as long Y is met". As long Y is met (as long as this flag issue is finally resolved) is a condition you're brought on your own there (at least from the way it is written, but probably not as you're intended it). It is likely to be read as if you're meaning that X (you can take any action against me) is couldn't be done unless Y (as long as this flag issue is finally resolved) is also met. That seems to be confusing, as it could be read either as something totally irrelevant, or a threat. What would happen, according to you, if this flag issue is not finally resolved the way you prefer? No action could be taken then? Or that you will not accept it then (irrelevant), or that you're actually emphasizing it is something that have to be actually addressed, just with no explanation why provided yet (a vague threat).

    Again, underlying reasoning why you write it is not addressing it, but if it is indeed a confusion due to vaguely constructed phrase, it is worthy of better wording in case. ~2026-39158-24 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

    I see, there is no threat or ultimatum intended. I simply care about the content accuracy more than my account. My phrasing may not have accurately conveyed my intent, as mentioned above, I struggle with sentence structure in English. I appreciate your understanding. Zemen ✧ 15:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support as a first step, minimum sanction. Zemen, please read through the discussion and try to think about how this looks from the outside to uninvolved editors - there are millions of articles on Wikipedia that you can focus your efforts on, don't let this escalate further. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, I do not think any greater sanction is necessary at the moment. Beta Beta Beta - talk 17:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Lightbreather and gun control editing

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

Lightbreather is an editor who focuses almost exclusively on gun control and American gun politics. They frequently add content about these things to general firearms articles, and whenever their edits are challenged, they engage with hostility on the talk page toward anyone disagreeing with their (often coatrackish) additions. They were primarily active 2013–2015 but recently resumed activity. This has led to other editors, primarily Springee and Anastrophe, getting into extended back-and-forths with them across several disputes. It's my understanding that both of these editors were already active on articles like this, but I would've suggested taking it here to ANI to avoid WP:HOUNDING. A non-exhaustive list of examples from the last couple months includes Talk:Drum magazine, Talk:Magazine (firearms), Talk:AR-15–style rifle, WP:RSN, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Anastrophe, and User talk:Anastrophe.

I was unaware of the fact when I wrote the above paragraph, but after looking at the block log and previous ANI posts to see how much they've previously been warned, I found that Lightbreather was arbcom-banned in 2015 in relation to their gun control editing. They successfully appealed the ban in 2022, and they successfully appealed the gun control topic ban in 2025, at which point they almost immediately began engaging in this sort of conduct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You should provide specific edits with links so other editors can evaluate them. TFD (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Concur with The Four Deuces. We can't sift through lots and lots of diffs to find the needles in the haystack you are referring to. Help us out? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I read (and commented in) the recent RSN thread they were involved in, there were some pretty aggressive comments like this one: Springee, why do you keep misrepresenting this source? It is not exclusively about policy, and you know it. Another one that caught my eye was LB asking a question, and in response to the (I think fairly reasonable) reply posting Answer the question please. LB was far from the only one behaving that way in the discussion though.

From looking at some of the threads in the OP, this appears to be a theme. I hope that Lightbreather can see that the interactions with Anastrophe and Springeee were pretty toxic. That's not me saying LB is fully to blame or anything like that (these editors seem to have ancient history with each other that I don't care to dig up), but LB is at least also engaging in the toxicity, and needs to step away from the brink, breathe deeply and WP:AGF more. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Samuelshraga, indeed, LB is NOT fully to blame, and they're editing against a number of editors who in a passive-aggressive manner export their POV into article space. It helps that they are up against only Lightbreather, typically, and thus escape charges of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In the RSN discussion, LB was not editing against a number of editors. But that aside, I don't think the dynamic you're describing really provides a defence - just an additional complaint about some other editors. Reading through some of OP's links, I see some eyebrow-raising contributions. This very public retirement announcement on an article talk page for one. Anastrophe's response to it highlighted LB's reference to search engine results in a way that mirrors what I thought reading that part: So that's what the endgame of all this was. Influencing search results on the internet at large, to push one's personal agenda.

Then follows a particularly poisonous back and forth on user talk linked to by OP. LB accuses A of being obsessed with her, WP:GAMING, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TAGTEAMING and (this is kind of ironic) not taking conduct disputes to noticeboards. If she can stand that up, a report would probably be appropriate, but whether she's right or not I don't think making loud threats to retire from the site on article talk (taking ample parting shots at other editors) and then pretty much immediately returning to the same page and topic and getting stuck in with the same editors is great form. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion that lead to that was full of FORUM from Springee and Anastrophe about electric cars, the Thompson submachine gun, ammo belts, clothes dryers, wheelbarrows, trucks and their wheel bases, and so on. I actually let myself get sucked in temporarily discussing washing machines, and when I stopped, Anastrophe came at me for not defining high-capacity washing machine. The final straw was when Anastrophe quoted from my ARCA in brightly colored text on two separate article talk pages. Between that and all the aspersions, I lost it. It's not a great excuse, but it does happen. I'm sorry our back-and-forth caused disruption. Though I was able to get the discussion redirected: Talk:Magazine_(firearms)/Archives/2026/June#Recap_and_reset. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the first two links and I don't think that's WP:FORUM. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, those are boringly pedestrian analogies. Qwirkle (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. That's what I get for working from memory on the wp:somethings. Whichever the one is that describes what is going on in those discussion. Where counterarguments are about electric cars and Tommy guns and clothes dryers instead of the subject at hand and what its sources say. I've searched all the wp:jargon I can remember, but can't find it. I'm sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There isn’t any policy against using analogies in an argument. WP:FORUM is about keeping tweens from discussing their favorite Pokemon at great length, and things like that. Qwirkle (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to write this and try to stay away for a bit. As TFD and Hammersoft have observed, the OP has provided ZERO diffs - just links to full conversations where readers and myself are supposed to suss out exactly what he's referring to.

That kind of stuff is really hard to respond to succinctly. I do hope anyone who is taking the time to read these often long discussions can appreciate some of the things Springee, Anastrophe, and others have written. Also, kindly refer to where I have responded to others here... Except maybe Anastrophe. Those often get quite personal and are about equally not collegial. I have written elsewhere here in response to some accusations, but I'm having trouble keeping up.

A couple observations that readers may or may not know is that:

1. Springee is not participating because apparently he is banned from doing so on the notice boards. He recently got this lifted long enough to start a close review (on this very subject) at WP:AN, but I don't think he's sought permission to speak here. The review supported the close the last time I looked, but it has since rolled into the archives.] As I mentioned elsewhere, Springee is mostly civil, but he does sometimes throw accusations at me. (One week into our first real discussion after Mudwater merged HCM and HCMB into Magazine (firearms) he threw an ICANTHEARYOU at me. He's thrown a few others since then too.) And the way he and his cronies talk about consensus, you'd think I was the only editor in these discussions defending sources and content they disagree with. He is quite the stonewaller and resists collaborating. He just deletes what he doesn't like.

2. North8000 was banned from gun-related topics some years ago. That has since been lifted, but I presented evidence in that ArbCom. I don't think any was about him, but it may have affected the way he sees me and my edits.

3. Anastrophe has had quite a few warnings put on his page about his behavior and even more comments about it that never grew into formal warnings. His anger at me borders on rage and I find it frightening. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"Anastrophe has had quite a few warnings put on his page about his behavior and even more comments about it that never grew into formal warnings. His anger at me borders on rage and I find it frightening."

Oh please. This reads as performative more than anything else ('I feel scared and threatened by Anastrophe, gosh, maybe this declaration can convince some rube to propose a site ban on him, I can't propose it because of my sketchy past history, but maybe someone will take the bait'). I'd love a direct quote that you contend is me expressing 'anger at [you] border[ing] on rage' (but given your tendency to grossly broad 'interpretations', who knows what we'll get in return). Give me a break. I've had a small handful of warnings in two decades here; it's an acorn to a mighty oak compared to OP. I can speak in strong tones, blunt and aggressive even, and sometimes express my frustration - all true, but as before, I've never threatened you or anyone else, I'm a pacifist, and I've no idea who you are or where you live (unlike the poor folks you doxxed in years past), so the notion that anything about me is frightening is ridiculous - yes, ridiculous. I'm in my sixties; the last time I 'engaged in physical violence' was in third grade when Bobby G<redacted>o was bullying me so I punched him in the chest. I sometimes shed tears watching videos of adorable puppies and kittens. I'm a downright menace to society.

You fooled a few admins/arbiters/whatever into believing your claims of reformation. You broke a promise that was predicate to your return. I predicted this. I warned of this. All I got in response was derision.

I like the "he and his cronies" bullshit slung at Springee by the way. Sure thing, we're all working together, we're a cabal, it's a conspiracy, and we're all out to get poor little LB. For the record, I've never communicated off-wiki with any of the other people who were pinged about this action or any of the other editors of gun related articles, and I'm pretty sure I've never communicated on-wiki directly with any of them either. I did have one email conversation with a user who participated in gun-related articles years ago, but she stopped participating on WP many, many years ago (pre- your ban).

I'd hazard that I may have clicked the 'thank' button on one of those assorted editor's contributions at some time, but I'm not even sure about that - I use the 'thank' button generously - I've even clicked it on some of your contributions, shockingly. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I may reply to your summarization and accusations later, but for now I'd like to shine a light on Anastrophe's interactions with me early in the ongoing high-capacity magazine discussions. You can get an idea of how he talks to me. (I suspect from his edit history and talk-page archives I'm not the only one.)

His first interactions with me at the "High-capacity magazine" article, May 2026:

• "Your preferred source states ... Unless you are suggesting ... That would beggar belief. ... Or is your preferred source the only source allowed?"
• "The claim that ... [is] laughable, and calls into question its use here."
• "Are you familiar with the difference between a definition, and a vernacular characterization? ... Strikes me as distractive. ... Drop the stick"
• "... it's not a productive use of anyone's time to continue litigating."
• He dropped quotes, in green and red text, from my ARCA into the middle of an article talk page discussion.

At this point, about May 16, the HCM article was merged by Mudwater into the "Magazine (firearms)" article. Anastrophe's interactions with me there:

• He accused me of BATTLEGROUND and OWNERSHIP
• "Back and forth and back and forth. I can play tit for tat as well - you dodged my 'demand' for a definition of a high-capacity washing machine - merely reverting to handwaving and more arguments that do damage to your campaign."
• "Nice gatekeeping."
• He quoted from my ARCA again, in blue and red, in the middle of another article talk page discussion.

After this, I started "Reminder" (about our earliest history) at his talk page: User_talk:Anastrophe/Archive_2026#Reminder

He disappeared for awhile, but returned again recently. His interactions with me are about the same as before. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm no bureaucrat and have not been through the ins-and-outs of ANI processes. I was notified of this thread via a mention on Lightbreather's User Talk and will offer my experiences in relation to High-capacity magazine and High-capacity magazine ban.

• I encountered Lightbreather when they sought to reverse the outcome of an AfD [] on the basis it was initiated by User:Iljhgtn - a sockpuppet editor who had subsequently been banned. Lightbreather dubbed the merge as BADFAITH on the basis of it's instigator, despite the outcome being a unanimous Merge from a large number of non-sock editors. The broad consensus was pointed out, but Lightbreather was seemingly very agitated that the AfD had been proposed by a sock. Whilst such proposals may well deserve scrutiny and reappraisal, in this case the consensus was clear and situation was fine as-was - they were part of a duplicative sprawl of gun articles which were DUE merging and tidying. Many editors pointed out that the phrase "high capacity magazine" - outside the context of legal restrictions (which were adequately covered) - was just marketing cruft and about as notable as a "high capacity battery" or Yeti announcing a new "High Capacity water bottle".
• Running against consensus, Lightbreather boldly reverted the merges on High-capacity magazine ban and High-capacity magazine and went on an edit spree. Both have since gone through another successful AfD, at the nomination of Springee (I was uninvolved in those AfDs, having disengaged). Lightbreather opposed the merge, opening with the comment "Oppose First, we wouldn't even be here if sockpuppet User:Iljhgtn hadn't brought "High-capacity magazine ban"". They are seemingly obsessed with the fact that a stuck clock was right twice a day and refuse to accept the broader consensus, based on the actual merits of the subject. This shows a real lack of respect for their fellow editors. They are right, everyone else is wrong,WP:ICANTHEARYOU.
• Prior to Springee's AfD, Lightbreather heavily edited the restored articles, sweeping up a variety of disparate sources to bolster their claim that the topics met GNG and staunchly defended the notability of both articles. Many of their sources did not appear to pass muster, were WP:TRIVIA or were misrepresented.
  • In one instance they claimed high capacity magazines were increasingly used in a particular target shooting discipline when the source clearly referred to "high capacity 1911-style firearms" - a type of firearm rather than magazine. Lightbreather than legislated over this insisted I needed to provide sources to counter their source. I suggested they did not have the domain knowledge required to edit this topic. Raising the issue of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED seemed more polite than assuming WP:BADFAITH. At this point I did not know about their prior topic ban. They insisted they did have the expertise, but it became clear that I needed to source every minutiae to the extent of WP:BLUE to satisfy them, or else they would simply state that I was conducting WP:OR. Sources are vital, but the correct response in this case should have been "Oh yes, my bad, that's not talking about high capacity magazines at all, but about the firearms themselves. It says so in the text".
  • At this point, the discussions were starting to feel like Brandolini's law - Lightbreather could put any source forward that they liked and oppononents would need massively more sources to counter, which still might not prevail because the goalposts felt like they were constantly moving. I disengaged and went on vacation (actual vacation. Dubrovnik is beautiful. Strongly recommend).
• It appears that Lightbreather has not accepted the consensus of the AfD and is now trying to UNDUEly expand the HCM section of Magazine (firearms). In my view (and I am not claiming BADFAITH here, but I am sorry I can no longer assume GOODFAITH), this is to inflate the section to a point where they can argue it needs it's own article, because they want to revert the AfD. Again.
  • I provided a single response to their RfC in order to submit my position on the matter (I have taken the decision not to engage in debate or discussion with Lightbreather, because it's like talking to a wall, and I recognise that I may get frustrated and eventually uncivil. So in with my position and facts, and out). I commented on the fact we're discussing a nebulous marketing term which defies definition, that the section as was written was confusing, vague and not possible to clean up. I noted that the standard Glock 17 17-round magazine was both standard and "High Capacity" and quipped that we could call this "Lightbreather's Paradox". A gentle jibe that I thought cut to the heart of the issue. That one line was my only deviation from pure point-of-fact. Lightbreather suggested this was a Personal Attack and did not engage with the substance of my post. I did not reply because it was clear that they were unwilling to engage with facts that opposed their POV. I should like to think that a gentle quip would be met with a wry smile, but my apologies if it was not received as intended. If I chose to engage in personal attacks, there would be no question about what I was saying. However, unlike Lightbreather I am capable of taking a WP:WALK.
• My impressions are:
  • Lightbreather is POV-editing and WP:BLUDGEONING the issue, in defiance of clear consensus that has emerged over multiple AfDs. They lean heavily on "But a Sock proposed the AfDs so they must be wrong".
  • In the specifics of my interactions, it feels adjacent to WP:EXISTS in that, yes the phrase "High-Capacity Magazine" exists and is used in sources, but it's meaning in any given source is highly context-specific. The only consistency exists in relation to bans/legislation/policy, which is not in question, and has a good section.
  • They are extremely Wiki-savvy, and happy to WP:LAWYER an issue into submission. Whether they realise it or not, they are effectively bullying other contributors out of articles through escalating demands, sometimes to prove a negative. This feels like performative naivety/"Just asking questions", but ultimately leaves them alone to edit articles as they see fit, having exhausted everyone else.
  • Opening a discussion about a user on a different user's talk page is... weird. It's moving into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory (Do not insult, disparage, harass, or try to intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement).
  • I find Lightbreather's habit of clearing their Talk page strange. In light of knowing about their topic ban, it seems more that it's a tactic to avoid people realising they have been challenged multiple times on a subject.
  • Having now read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather (Which I have literally just done, AFTER writing everything above), it feels extremely familiar. In particular the section Lightbreather#Intransgience. It's quite a shocking read, and Lightbreather has my greatest sympathies for off-wiki harassment, which is terrible and a poor reflection on the project. However two wrongs don't make a right and does not excuse continued intransigent behaviour.

Hemmers (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hemmers, man! Talk about WP:BLUE! You have posted so many opinions that I'm not going to try to respond to every accusation.

1st bullet: I only participated in the third and last AfD, started by Springee. (The first two, including the one Hemmers links to above, were started by the sockpuppet.) I was the only one who !voted in opposition to the merge, but Mudwater and Drmies (who did not !vote) questioned the clarity of Springee's proposal. Also, the second AfD pinged the participants of the first, and the third AfD pinged the participants of the second, so they were only a formality and the outcome preordained. I asked that the third one be opened to a wider audience, but it never was.

The sockpuppet's edits were obviously BADFAITH, but DENY and BANBLOCKDIFF also apply.

2nd/3rd: I reverted the merges done by the sockpuppet while the third AfD was underway. When Springee started the AfD, a notice was put on the HCM page inviting editors to improve it.

4th: I'm not even going to get into this again. Hemmers thinks I don't know the difference between a 1911 and a 2011. It all boils down to whether or not a double-stack magazine is HC. Some will say it is, others will say it isn't. The source I used was an article on the NRA Shooting Sports website. I had others, too, but since I was getting nowhere, I finally gave up.

5th: Brandolini's law = bullshit asymmetry principle. Got it. I don't know what he's referring to. As for asking for sources, I kept giving them and Springee kept asking for more.

6th: The "High-capacity magazine" section is barely 5% of the total article and placed near the bottom of the article, just above the "High-capacity magazine ban" section. I am not the only active editor who believes that high-capacity isn't just a legal/political term... and we provided loads of sources. (Though Springee has different standards for when sources can be used, depending on whether or not they support his argument.)

7th: That was when you backhandedly called me a liar. It wasn't a gentle jibe.

As for Hemmers' "impressions" - Whoa! I hadn't read the bludgeoning essay in a while. If that applies to me, it must also apply to Springee. (We can both be quite verbose.) I absolutely disagree with H. throwing EXISTS at me, considering I'm not the only editor who agrees about there being two kinds of high-capacity magazines. On lawyering, again, let's please also consider Springee. Finally, BATTLEGROUND starts, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts...." That would be Anastrophe (diffs in previous comments). I don't think Springee has a grudge with me, and I don't have a grudge with him. He's mostly pretty civil. But he's also unwilling to truly collaborate on a couple topics.

Re Hemmers' "Opening a discussion" comment: That user had pinged me to another article talk page It would have been bad form to say what I wanted to say in the article discussion, although I did make a brief remark there. I also asked Springee if he had a COI, based on something he said about "professional editors" feelings about what is due. I didn't think it would be right to say anything more there. Lightbreather (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"[...] "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts...." That would be Anastrophe (diffs in previous comments)."

It's not a grudge to expect that when: an editor is site banned for seven years for multiple bad behaviors; pleads for return via a "Dear community" promise as part of the rationale ("FIRST, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor."); is unbanned with significant restrictions (including gun topics); edits productively for a few years; lobbies to have all restrictions removed because they're a productive editor - while tendering 'Dear community' again as justification/rationale; has all but one restriction rescinded; "retires" because one restriction wasn't rescinded (1RR); then five months later returns to editing (at what now is virtually WP:SPA level) gun related topics; with many of the same patterns and bad behaviors that contributed to a seven year site ban...

...no, that's not a grudge. That's expecting a person to honor their goddamned promise that contributed to successfully having their restrictions lifted. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask, considering the totality of the circumstances. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines grudge as a feeling of deep-seated resentment or ill will. Everything you wrote after "no, that's not a grudge"... is a grudge. Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If you remember, I also had to explain to you how you how you were threatening/hounding me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You "explained" nothing. You presented a fanciful, broad-beyond-the-margins interpretation of what constitutes "threats to disrupt a person's work on wikipedia". I tendered no threats. That's not to say that my actions weren't inappropriate and potentially sanctionable; I did acknowledge my actions bumped into 'hounding' territory. I did tender an apology for my actions postings, but when you started presenting various 'remedies' beyond my apology, I was done. I did no damage;I pointed out that you broke your word to 'the community'. The damage done rests solely in your actions. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

... when you started presenting various 'remedies' beyond my apology, I was done.

The only "remedies" I suggested (the suggestion started with "If") was to strike the stuff from ARCA that you posted on article talk pages. Those posts were threatening. You could have brought your anger here to ANI or taken it to ARCA. I told you several times to take your complaints to the appropriate forum. But you didn't. You won't start a complaint at these places. You told me so yourself:

No, it's because I despise bureaucracy with the heat of a thousand suns, so intentionally staying ignorant of how the medieval processes work prevents me from falling down that fucking wormhole.

And yet here you are. Lightbreather (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If quoting your own words constitutes a threat - well, there's more amiss here than I can possibly address in this lifetime. Good luck with that.

Intentionally staying ignorant of the minutia of the smorgasbord of turgid bureaucratic panels and administrative actions and arbitration councils and Department of Redundany Departments and fuel tenders and court jesters and chamber maids on WP is one thing (I don't even know wtf "ARCA" is, lol). Responding in a thread that involves me is not that. You've opined before that there's something nefarious in my refusal to be sucked into wikipedia's bureaucracies - that like some master criminal, I cracked the code to prevent having things "boomerang" on me - by not diving feet first into the bureaucratic processes as you have done throughout your career here. Input to a process already in place is not the same as putting on a green visor and poring over the minutia of fine-print rules for proper 'format' in XYZ bureaucratic venue in order to perform a formal action is entirely different.

But - you will hang onto whatever you need to hang on to. You are obviously within your rights to file formal actions against me - as can anyone else privy to all this horseshit. I can't stop you or anyone from doing that. Not in my power. If I'm sanctioned, so be it. As I've pointed out before, I've been here two decades, been scolded a few times, and even blocked for a few days here and there.(Hey, I figured out how to view my block logs! 15 October 2007 - blocked for 24 hours (3RR). 12 February 2020 - blocked for 48 hours (edit warring)...that doesn't seem right, I thought there were at least three, possibly four. Might be doing it wrong.)

Oh dear. I just looked up a different editor's history. Oh dear. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If quoting your own words constitutes a threat...

Why did you choose to quote me on not one but two article talk pages? (rhetorical question) If your intention was purely to remind me of what I'd said, or to register your anger, you could have posted on my talk page. Your intention was to get the attention of others. Consider what you did in light of the harassment policy:

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated...

Threatening another person is considered harassment.

Lightbreather (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, if your own words can be construed as making a threat, I'm still boggled. But since you persist: My first reply to your claim that I had tendered a threat was similarly baffled: "What, exactly, am I threatening? Please - quote - chapter and verse. I don't see a threat of anything, or even a carefully veneered implication of a threat. I want you to go away like you promised, I have no interest in drawing this out further.".

And for further clarity, the actual text of the subhead threats in the harrassment policy:

"Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.

The use of "statements of intent" re formal proceedings makes it quite clear the context in which 'threat' is being described: making a threat. I didn't say "you better leave wikipedia or bad things will happen". I just quoted your own very public words.

But since you persist: I'll quote you above in reply to me avoiding taking actions on others in wp bureaucracy: "And yet here you are.". I take that as a threat to my ability to participate in an action promulgated by someone else. It seems you're saying that I should not participate here. You didn't say "Anastrophe, you'd better stop posting here or bad things will happen". But I've decided to interpret it as if you did.

I made no threat to to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia. I've no control of your broad interpretation, which more than anything, strikes me as 'gauntlet thrown and codified for potential future option of requesting sanctions/punishment' rather than an honest interpretation. Considering there's not been a scintilla of restraint on your participation on WP since I posted those, the suggestion that you found it intimidating seem hollow. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I found User:Scalhotrod (and a few other editors) intimidating, and yet I kept editing. It's possible to be scared and still screw your courage to the sticking place. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You can't see into my head; you are projecting your own feelings and interpretation. I would love to return to the few years after the ban was lifted (with restrictions), which - again - I voted for. Hardly grudge material voting for removal of a total site ban. Removal of the topic ban on gun-related article space was a mistake, that is absolutely patent. It needs to be restored.

We had precisely zero interactions during your several year return with restrictions. None. Nada. Silence Obtained. Why? Because you were productively editing the encyclopedia. No drama. No months-long refusals to accept consensus decisions, wikilawyering, 'I don't hear you'. I didn't follow you around the encyclopedia looking for ways to trip you up, or trying to find evidence of recalcitrance, or hounding you to try to elicit a response. Those, I would think, would be grudge behaviors. The last thing I want is more interaction with you. TMOT. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hemmers, despite the fact that you don't know why I blanked my talk page archives, I took 45 minutes out of my morning restoring them just for you and others who think I'm being sneeky. Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I happen to be with LB on this matter. The rules and guidelines for user talk pages are clearly spelled out, and, within a very limited set of circumstances, an editor can pretty much do whatever they want with content on that page. Some archive. Some blank. Some never touch what's there and leave decades of comments in place. All are allowed, none implicate any specific underlying behaviors. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

While I admittedly have a long history with agreeing with LB on content & policy, but these seem like disputes over policy and content as well, rather than disruptive malicious behavior. Is there evidence of disruptive intent, and if so, is it only limited to LB's comments? DN (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(Pinged) I don't know what this multiyear overview would lead to, but IMO they devote an immense amount of time, expertise, cleverness and Wiki-savvyness editing towards a particular POV on politically-related firearm articles, and this appears to be nearly their only wiki-activity. I don't know if bludgeoning is the right word, but this results in them dominating articles where the other editors are only able to devote a more typical amount of time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• The Committee lifted some of LB's restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_133#Amendment_request:_Lightbreather, a mere 8 months ago. I imagine we could hear the issue again at WP:ARCA if her issues have returned. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  The behaviors have assuredly returned. A couple of rudimentary diffs should be illustrative.

  Here's a diff of all comments on Talk:Magazine (firearms) from October 2014, after the editor in question was banned, and May of this year, when editor in question resumed editing firearm articles - twelve years of talk page comments in one diff:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMagazine_%28firearms%29&diff=1354469784&oldid=628921096

  And here's a diff of the same talk page, just since the editor returned to editing gun-related article in May - not even two months :

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magazine_(firearms)&diff=cur&oldid=1218075074

  Comparing the two should be enlightening. This is same battleground behavior that contributed to the site ban. I warned of this eventuality during the lobbying-for-rescission interval in Oct/Nov 2025.

  
  

  If an action is promulgated, hopefully I'll be notified. I was never notified when the site ban was being discussed in 2014. I did learn of the unban effort in 2022, and - I think notably - I lobbied to have the site ban lifted.

  Removal of the gun-related topics ban was a mistake. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't necessarily prove anything because:

  1. A 12 year diff does not actually show all the text added to the page within 12 years. It just shows the page wasn't very active at the beginning and also wasn't very active at the end. It doesn't say anything about the intervening period.

  2. Of course if there's a local consensus on a page, and an editor who disagrees with that consensus enters the topic area, there's going to be a lot of discussion to hammer out the consensus. That doesn't necessarily mean the WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY editor is being disruptive by disagreeing. Loki (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can easily visit the archive pages for those years and review them. And the overall edit history of the talk page. It'll take about 90 seconds to confirm. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, I will be emailing ArbCom quite soon about why I'm working in this specific topic area (high-capacity magazines) as well as when I plan to retire. Lightbreather (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  What's the ArbCom email address, may I ask? I'd like to email the same address you'll be privately emailing. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anastrophe, there's no need to email us. As LB has been directly advised, none of what was sent to us requires off-wiki consideration, and therefore if it is to be considered, it should be shared on-wiki rather than through email back-channels. Daniel (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. It's the whiff of 'I have back-channel access and communication with (potentially friendly) admins' that bothers the hell out of me. Cloakroom machinations are a bad look.

  I would still like to know: is there an "ArbCom email address" that broadcasts to all arbiters without distinction? I ask since editor has been non-responsive to the inquiry. To be clear, if there is a 'broadcast' address, I don't need it, nor does it need to be shared publicly (which is probably undesirable to put it mildly). I would just like to clear up the distinction and implications of editors statement. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:ARBCOM, which covers how to contact the committee. Quick answer is yes, arbcom-enwikimedia.org. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been pondering this discussion and I have a question. User:Thebiguglyalien: As far as I can tell, we've only ever had one exchange, just a couple days ago. You posted on a talk page and I gave a brief, innocuous reply. That's it. Our whole exchange. And an hour later you started this ANI. Why? Lightbreather (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It was after reading the other relevant discussions. As I said above, the other editors in my opinion should have sought outside assistance once the issue became intractable, but instead it spiraled over a wide area. I felt this was a better alternative than joining the spiral, as tempting as that would be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sound like you could have done better, then, than directing this at one particular editor, who is kind of an easy target. North8000, please don't think that the "other side" is without a POV or wiki-savvyness. LB happens to be pretty much alone in editing those articles in disagreement with the other editors, but if I had world enough and time I'd be in that same position. And you know I appreciate you, but I also know where your particular POV is. Just to make the matter clear to the onlooking admins and arbs, I don't see anything in LB's edits that warrant reproach. Drmies (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"LB happens to be pretty much alone in editing those articles in disagreement with the other editors." This isn't exactly accurate. Lightbreater gets pretty steady support from @Katzrockso in the discussion on Talk:Magazine (firearms). That editor is the more aggressive of the two in that discussion, actually. Intothatdarkness 12:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Drmies When I edit Wikipedia my only agenda is article improvement. E.G. my few edits posts in the above-discussed articles were for neutral and unambiguous terminology and articles with a clear subject. The summary I gave here was because I felt it would informative to note these things because they exist to unusual degree. Reinforcing the preface of my post and its intent, this is not to say any of what I noted is per se wrong, in fact IMO it is not per se wrong. My own opinion is that it's just the "unusual degree" that raises some concerns and also creates a sub-optimal situation. Another disclaimer....due to my noted very limited participation on these, I don't have detailed knowledge about the potential editor interaction issues raised in this discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Kind of a weird deal, acknowledging they edit with a POV and admitting you would do the same if you were less lazy. Just to make clear to anyone, including admins or arbs, that really discounts your argument, especially the weird jab that you know North's POV. ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What an odd flex. And you are? Drmies (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Drmies What flex? Is pointing out flaws in your logic a flex now? No, it is not lol But I am Michael, why do you ask? Also is it not a bit hypocritical to ask given your recent comment? ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur entirely with Drmies. I am relatively neutral in personal opinion on firearms articles. I'm a non-American from a country with a lot of very well regulated civilian firearms and I find the rhethoric from south of the border from both sides of the debate pretty non-applicable in the rest of the world where we just regulate firearms. So then I see a well-sourced section about the use of drum magazines in mass shootings being kept out by what seems a lot of WP:STONEWALL masked as proceduralism. Lightbreather has the misfortune to be outnumbered here. But their behaviour is not any worse than many of the people they are editing contrary to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is considered stonewalling when everyone in a discussion disagrees with the point you make just because you like that point. I have not looked very deeply into the content dispute part of it, but it is good to remember that just because a source exists does not mean the content is due. ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, but of course part of the responsibility you inheret as an editor is the obligation to do the mature thing and accept a result the community keep demonstrating is a WP:SNOW issue, rather than relitigating endlessly despit clear community consensus, by leveraging technicalities. I'd say a refusal to do that is basically WP:TEND after a certain point, and if I am reading the continuity of events here, they blew past that well before the close of the last WP:AfD. It is well-established community practice that an unambigous community determination should stand, irrespective of a discussion or process having been started in bad faith or by a party evadading a sanction. That this issue had to be re-settled over and over through so many discussions, including three separate AfD's despite such a clear result in each instance, is really silly and a waste of community/volunteer time. It's somewhat defensible in that that there were at least 2-4 months between the formal AfD attempts, but still this is a lot of energy expended around something that had repeatedly been established by consesus within one year. When you add in the wrinkles that this user is only relatively recently out from under a TBAN in this area, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that they should have know better and are failing to prioritize the good of the project over grinding the same old axe.

Now as you say, I am sure there is no shortage of editors bringing strong arm energy into this particular topic area, but they haven't recently been shown indulgence and trust of ArbCom in permitting a trial return to this area where they have prevously been found disruptive. This user has, and should be more at pains than anyone to avoid making the consensus formation process as tedious and needlessly attenuated as possible by being unable to "take the L" as the kids say today. However, I am confused as to why this has not been kicked back to WP:ARCA as was suggested by CaptainEek. In both procedural and strictly practial terms, that seems like the apporpriate approach in these circumstances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:31, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I was pinged here from a user talk notice on LB's user talk page about this thread. Reading over the above I think WP:NOTADVOCATE applies. Perhaps in this case the firearm debate in the United States falls under WP:CT/AP?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am leaving these comments from LB hear, separate from my analysis I'd like fellow editors to look at them strongly for themselves. But I will include my reasons as to how they apply. I will also acknowledge these may have already been alluded to by previous editors but I would like to emphasize that this behavior isn't a minor complaint or happening in a vacuum.

• User talk:~2026-34199-65#c-Lightbreather-20260629133200-Springee's conduct
• Talk:Republican Party (United States)#c-Lightbreather-20260629133600-~2026-34199-65-20260627225000
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#c-Lightbreather-20260711200200-Inclusion of crimes/shootings section in "Drum magazine" article
• Talk:Republican Party (United States)#c-Lightbreather-20260629134300-Springee-20260628001400

The fundamental issue at hand is that since Lightbreather being reintroduced to this topic fairly recently, they have almost exclusively locked in on behavior that makes collaboration toxic, painful, if not mentally harmful. LB has defied consensus on AFDs and talk pages on multiple occasions using a sockpuppet as an excuse to remove widely agreed upon edits. WP:Bludgeon has been used on multiple occasions like the drum magazine article where the current debate and consensus has been ignored. This has been followed by incorrectly used NPOVN and on a different occasion an WP:3O request which was denied. LB has engaged in WP:Canvassing by using the NPOVN, the republican party talk page, and an editor talk page to rally consensus in her direction or ire against another editor. This also ties into WP:CIV and WP:NPA have been crossed as LB has engaged in sarcastic and aggressive behavior upon disagreements.

These two policies have gone hand in hand with her violations of WP:DE as the republican party talk page has been used to cast aspersions by bringing up unsubstantiated claims for conflict of interest and bring up other unrelated talk page disputes. This combined with going to a user talk page to talk about another editor gives the impression of tag teaming at the very least. It worries me that simple disagreements will be aired on every venue possible whether appropriate or not and that editors are being actively recruited to help LB when she is losing consensus.

Finally, the ArbCom ban and topic ban combined with the "retirement" show an inability to handle this topic with care and grace. I'd like to move forward and through different topics without the worry my name will be dragged through the mud. I'd like any admin and future commentors to look at this thoroughly so there's a clear understanding of what's happening and the consequences of letting it continue.AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

AA. would you put some bullets on your list of links please? Then I can respond to your accusations. Lightbreather (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Your links are to discussions, not diffs. I'm especially interested to know where you think I canvassed. Lightbreather (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

These links take you right to your comments and have also have been provided by other commentators here. You can disagree with my conclusions about what you're saying, which is fine. But I clearly link to what you have said. Thank you AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

AdamentAardvark, did you just say that Lightbreather was using sockpuppets? Do you know how serious that accusation is? As far as I know there was only one sock in these discussions, and that was Iljhgtn, whose behavior inflamed a situation that might not have caught fire otherwise. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

AadamentAardvark: courtesy edit to complete Drmies' ping. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

AA will answer for themselves, but I read "using a sockpuppet as an excuse to remove widely agreed upon edits" as a loose phrasing for saying that LB removed edits on the basis that a sockpuppet (lijhgtn) had made the edits. AA is saying that this should not have happened for "widely agreed upon edits". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

That appears to be the obvious read of AA's comment reading through the whole discussion. Drmies, you might want to strike that or perhaps hat this part. PackMecEng (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I read the same thing as well. Intothatdarkness 14:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes that's what I'm saying AadamentAardvark (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Refer to the comments below for the meaning of my comment. I am not and have not ever accused LB of using sockpuppet, nor do I think she is in any capacity. This is a wild misconstruing of my point AadamentAardvark (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@AadamentAardvark: Please give the actual DIFF where you think that I canvassed. You only provided links to discussions. Lightbreather (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I was notified to take part in this discussion because I have been pinged by Lightbreather for the Talk:Magazine (firearms) page HCM section discussions since this past May. I’ll take the time to share a few of the things I’ve noticed lately about some talk page disputes where they seem to be focused on editors rather than article content.

• During a Talk:Republican Party, Lightbreather imported an unrelated dispute involving Springee from Talk:Magazine (firearms), writing that his conduct there "mirrors" his behavior into the current discussion, and later asked, "Do we have a conflict of interest here?" leading to other editors responding that she should refrain from “accusing fellow editors” of things like WP:COI when there is “no real evidence” and reminders to follow WP:FOC.

• Lightbreather recently opened a thread on another editor's user talk page, titled "Springee's conduct" and stated "I agree that S. has a behavior problem," and suggested, "feel free to use these diffs", prompting the talk page owner to reply, "I'd like to keep this from becoming a discussion of another editor's behaviour on my talk page". This resembles the type of conduct cautioned against under WP:CANVASS.

• On Talk:Magazine (firearms), Lightbreather opened a discussion directed at Springee’s statement and repeatedly demands that Springee "show us your sources" and "prove your claim." The pattern throughout the talk page feels like an WP:ICANTHEARYOU concern when repeatedly returning to the same points after they have been addressed.

I'll just end by saying that these recent examples of carrying disputes across multiple venues, shifting content discussions toward editors, continually repeating the same lines of argument after other editors have tried to refocus the discussion, may be relevant to the concerns described in WP:BLUDGEON and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm still not clear as to why requesting sources is inappropriate? Cheers. DN (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting sources is fine. It's when they're presenting a weak source as some beacon of authority, demanding that other editors prove a negative; WP:SKYBLUE or provide a source that conclusively demonstrates their misinterpretation of their source is false (i.e. setting impossible standards). e.g. when they're writing that "high capacity magazines" are widely used in a particular sporting discipline (and this therefore demonstrates GNG) based on one throwaway line in a match report which is actually using "high capacity" to mean something different. Editors are apparently expected to find a source that explains (as if to a 5 year old) that Lightbreather's interpretation of the words "High capacity 1911" is referring to the firearm not to the magazine, and any attempt to point Lightbreather to the M1911 pistol article or explain this is dubbed WP:OR. Requesting sources is fine. "Lalala ICANTHEARYOU" crosses a line. Sources don't exist to specifically prove Lightbreather's wilful misinterpretation of innocuous phrases to support their POV-editing. I was willing to assume it was a (weirdly insistent) lack of domain knowledge until I read about the previous TBAN at which point it started to look a lot more deliberate. Hemmers (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I also "guilty" in that particular context, since I also requested to see the sources that they claimed? DN (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The November 2025 amendment to Lightbreather's topic ban that User:CaptainEek mentioned above seems very apropos to this overall discussion. From that discussion, User:Anastrophe noted, "These are some of the behaviors that contributed to the site ban, and based on a reading of recent activity there, haven't abated in the slightest. The requestor has not learned from past mistakes." My understanding of "some of the behaviors" that Anastrophe noted in that discussion included Lightbreather gossiping about other editors, being hyperfocused on one topic, being uncivil to other editors, and other behaviors contrary to policy. I think that what Anastrophe was talking about then is unfortunately just as true now as it was before. From what has been said above, there seems to be violations of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUD WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVASS, and potentially more policy violations that do not seem to stop regardless of what is done. I think either a block or an indefinite TBAN would be warranted here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you please reformat the text you placed in quotes? It's not a verbatim quote; there was no parenthetical in it. I understand you were summarizing the behaviors in your interpretation, however it's not clearly presented as being your summary/interpretation. At minimum, prepend in italics "Editor:" within the parenthetical text to set it off as not part of the quote. Personally, I would use square brackets on insertion of content that's not part of the quote; not sure if that's a convention or just my particular preference though. thanks. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem, hold on, I will revise it and you can let me know what you think after. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, let me know what you think. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Rather than Lightbreather being the wrongdoer here, she seems more like the victim of a witch-hunt. She comes into articles attempting to revert the edits instituted by a group of sockpuppets by an editor whose sockpuppets were banned for POV-pushing, only to be met with incredible pushback. While in the numerical minority, she has worked to achieving consensus and has only been met with WP:STONEWALLING, WP:PA, WP:TAGTEAMING and other forms of WP:Disruptive editing. I can only commend her for remaining as calm as she has in the face of such a situation.Katzrockso (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  “Group of sockpuppets?” You either need to name at least 3 usernames, or strike that. Qwirkle (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that is the definition, as in "multiple"...why 3? DN (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do your really first think of “two” when someone talks about “a group?” Qwirkle (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are we talking about parlance? I doubt every single editor follows the same exact definition, but far be it from me to speak for Katzrockso. I only wish they would fix their profile so their name would stop showing up in red ;-) Cheers. DN (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Qwirkle: I've asked this before, but you never properly replied. You have a second account, but I don't see any mention of it on your user page. I think you also have an open topic ban, though maybe I missed where it was lifted. I might have posted this on your talk page, but it says "Post No Bills" and I think it might get deleted without an answer. Why is your second account undisclosed on your user page? Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anyone else here who, having looked at my dust-up with Jytdog and Sans Courage, and glanced at a nearly unused legacy account, thinks this is at all relevant to a discussion about firearms?

  If so, I might answer them. Qwirkle (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Since this ANI is dissecting my behaviors, it seems looking at the behaviors of my accusers is relevant. Also, WP:ALTNOTIFY is policy. You're suggesting it's optional. Lightbreather (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The policy says it should be done not must be done. The account has 55 edits, with the last being 18 months ago. There is no attempt to conceal the connection and it's clear that it's used as an alternate watchlist. There's nothing falling foul of WP:SOCK there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What it says is "Unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative registered accounts should provide links between the accounts."

  I'll press the point no further, but if I did this, there'd be people asking me about it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  X should be done unless Y is functionally different than X must be done unless y. Some policies make strong suggestions or provide best practices without that being set in stone. You can see both the red line language and the best practices language WP:BLP, e.g. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. When it is not it should be removed.
  No one is getting blocked for not removing unsourced BLP content they see, and no one is getting sanctioned for having an alternate account that isn't being used to violate WP:SOCK. Their alternate account has no bearing on this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  BTW I am dealing with similar issues at multiple articles, all started by User:Iljhgtn. DN (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "[...]all started by User:Iljhgtn." Proximately, or consequent to editor in question engaging their campaign to "clean up" after Ilhjgtn in the aftermath of that user's block/ban as a sock? cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "She comes into articles attempting to revert the edits instituted by a group of sockpuppets by an editor whose sockpuppets were banned for POV-pushing, only to be met with incredible pushback."

  Sorry, which sockpuppets are you talking about? I'm not a sockpuppet. Are you accusing Springee of being a sock? Yes, certain articles had AfDs proposed by a sock (Ilhjgtn) who was subsequently banned. But those AfDs were fairly discussed and the changes met with consensus. The fact Lightbreather has then bold reverted in defiance of consensus in Talk, which have then gone back to AfD and reaffirmed the initial consensus (which Lightbreather still doesn't want to accept) only highlights Lightbreather's POV and ICANTHEARYOU conduct. It's no secret that firearms-related articles suffer from enormous sprawl, WP:GLOBALIZE and WP:NOTGUIDE issues (because... America). It's inevitable that various topics are going to stand mergers and consolidation over time. And sure, others will be split. None of this is POV. Hemmers (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you have your timeline and facts straight and, again, no diffs. (Not links to discussions, but actual diffs.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's pretty inevitable that LB was going to be ganged up against and bullied by gun advocacy editors, once she misguidedly stepped back into that topic area. She was wearing a bullseye on her back from the start, so to speak. I'd advise closing this with no futher action, personally. Topic ban LB out of gun articles, maybe. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Lightbreather TBAN on gun control

There was some discussion earlier about taking this matter to WP:ARCA or WP:AE for resolution, as the simplest path may have been to re-implement the ArbCom TBAN made as part of a package of sanctions in Lightbreather's 2015 ArbCom case, which was rescinded by ArbCom motion in November 2025. However, no one with knowledge of the scope of the current purported disruption has stepped forward to make that request, and this discussion has definitely raised colourable claims that LB's return to this area has involved considerable disruption. Since no alternative resolution is forthcoming despite those concerns, and as the community is able to apply a TBAN of its own, I'm proposing that as the solution. Please !vote or comment on this proposed wording: Lightbreather is indefinitely topic banned from issues regarding gun control, broadly construed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN is the best remedy in light of Lightbreather's continued disruptions after lifting sanctions less than a year ago. Apologizing and promising not to do it again only to immediately return to the same behavior justifies an indefinite ban from gun related topics.

Lechtkaeaeia (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I know you're preparing a note, but in the meantime, is it possible to close the discussion pending an outcome? Please. It's been eight days and there are already 35 (I think) !votes. That seems like plenty for the closer to consider and I'm pretty stressed out. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I am convinced by the scope of the evidence here, presented by numerous parties, that there have been substantial impacts and disruption in a number of discussions owing to LBs approach, which at a minimum demonstrates a lack of collaborative effort and willingness to accept consensus and may in fact constitute abuse of process. I expect an editor recently returned to an area they have previously displayed problematic behaviour so severe that it required five separate sanctions to restrain to exercise the highest level of conduct and restraint to demonstrate that the statements that they made when getting the sanctions rescinded, that they understand the impacts of their previous behaviour, are accurate. Here though, we seem to have an aggressive return to tendentious tactics. And in fact, I note that the ground upon which these battles are playing out and the manner in which they are being approached bear substantial resemblance to the circumstances that led to ArbCom's TBAN: see in particular the Committee's findings here and here. Further, I note that the ArbCom's TBAN was not the first for LB on this subject matter, as admins at AE had previously imposed a six month ban in 2014.
  As others have noted here, and as one would expect given the divisiveness of the gun control issue even as compared to other USPOL subjectmatter, not every aspect of the present issues are of Lightbreather's making. But even giving a detailed look at that context, I believe LB's particular behaviour in this area continues to be a source of significant enough disruption to make them a net negative to complicated and already demanding editorial and consensus work on the topic, and that HJ Mitchell's dissent on the amendment motion has proven portentous. Respectfully, the fact that this area does and always will include bad actors of various sorts cannot be used to excuse all of the questionable conduct presented here. Indeed, it is just one more reason why we need this topic to be covered by editors with a scrupulous approach. With regret, I feel we have seen enough to act. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  there have been substantial impacts and disruption in a number of discussions owing to LBs approach, which at a minimum demonstrates a lack of collaborative effort and willingness to accept consensus and may in fact constitute abuse of process...Are there diffs that support this that may also be put into context? I clicked on the committee finding and realized they were about a decade ago, roughly. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm also not convinced that linking an ArbCom case from 12 years ago support this current proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm convinced that linking to the ArbCom case from twelve years ago is directly relevant to this proposal. Same editor. Same patterns. Same disruptions. Historical perspective matters. I believe all formal actions from before and after the site ban are relevant to this matter. The outcome of the recission of the site ban - with restrictions - was several years of LB productively editing the encyclopedia without conflict.

  The outcome of the recission of the 'gun control' topic ban was inevitable. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I very clearly labelled the timing of each previous community or administrative/Committee intervention and sanction. There's no effort to hide the ball here. Each respondent can interpret that context as they wish. For my part, I think of this in another light; it is only seven months since the ban was rescinded and already we are seeing an approach with striking overlaps on both very specific topics and approach. In my view, that makes it hardly a point Lightbreather's favour that the original conduct occured 12 years ago. Quite the contrary, it makes it appear as if their well-documented restraint problem in this area is fundamental to their approach to the subject matter. Personally, I think we are giving them more of the benefit of the doubt here than ArbCom. That case concluded with six sanctions, including a suspended site ban and a (still in effect) 1RR restriction.

  Honestly, I expect to shortly be hearing from the other side of aisle that the proposal is not strong enough, butI lean towards the most constrained solution that I think will address the largest issues, and try to preserve the editor. And even those who think that LBs conduct should be considered in the light of any provocation might consider that this is as much an off-ramp for them as anything else. Anybody could have taken this matter to ARCA at their discretion, and in that forum, all of the previous sanctions would be back on the table. It doesn't mystify me that LB has defenders in these circumstances: that is not an inherently unthinkable position. But I think even their defenders should be honest that this situation is substantially of their making all the same. When considering the limited means by which we might thread the needle between protecting a CTOP from disruption while also avoiding an overzealous counter-reaction, this proposal has merit.

  Anyone is of course free to disagree. But I believe it is a misstatement of the circumstances to say that the argument for a TBAN is based on stale evidence. There are in fact quite a few editors above who have demonstrated otherwise. The fact that the issues stretch back to the horizon does not change that, nor does it put the problem in a particularly more positive light. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I clicked on the committee finding and realized they were about a decade ago, roughly.

  It goes back to 2022 because in the 2025 amendment request Lightbreather pointed ArbCom back to their own 2022 "Dear community" statement: First, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages… and said they had: I have abided by my restrictions and behaved as promised. So, it's relevant now because this discussion is about whether their conduct since the topic ban was lifted is consistent with what they told ArbCom when asking to have the remaining sanctions removed. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have stated repeatedly, on several talk pages, exactly why I tried to undo high-capacity magazine "merges" by Iljhgtn (after I learned he was a sockpuppet). Here is one: "I don't plan to work on gun articles, but this one hit my radar because that sockpuppet, Iljhgtn, put an AfD notification on my talk page both times he tried to get it deleted." And I will be outta here on gun articles once the dust settles on this. Lightbreather (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm simply not seeing the sort of one-sided disruption that would justify a topic-ban. Loki (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why does it need to be one sided? If the other side is a problem, start a tread on them as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The so-called evidence provided above says more about the editors posting it than it does about Lightbreather. Katzrockso (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support. [Grandstanding-free zone.] cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Anastrophe, @Katzrockso (and anyone else I’ve missed), btw you're involved, community-imposed sanctions are supposed to only be !voted on by uninvolved editors (WP:CBAN), but this is never enforced. Just at the very least disclose that you’re involved Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  From CBAN: "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response." I would appreciate this @Snow Rise: It would be nice if the closer could easily see who is involved and who is uninvolved. And for my comments not to get lost amongst the other posts. Lightbreather (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, I've never seen that actually utilized in a CBAN discussion anywhere on the project, but I note the verbiage has been in the policy for a very long time, and I don't see any negative trade-off giving reason to object.

  The only problem is, with the discussion already under way, I don't want to be chopping up the thread, moving comments out of context and without position and refactoring. How about we do this: well before the thread closes, I will add a bolded note after the proposal prompt noting which users were involved in the underlying disputes. I will use a generous definition of involved, to include anyone !voting who was on the opposite side of a dispute in a TP discussion mentioned here. Would that work for you? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "community-imposed sanctions are supposed to only be !voted on by uninvolved editors (WP:CBAN), but this is never enforced."

  Regardless of the outcome, this will be wikilawyered into oblivion because a policy is in place and isn't being followed - failure to enforce only makes it about as (judicially) ripe as it gets. This proposal should be closed and mooted, and restarted fully conformant to the rules. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I will leave a nondescript, unlinked list of names on your talk page of whom I think is involved and you can take or leave them as you wish. Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Why I don't see that happening. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• I just don't see how that can be feasibly be done at this juncture. Respectfully, I don't think you have thought through what that would consist of. I can't just wave a wand and wish away the existence of the already existing !votes. Even if I created a second prompt (which would be a really weird way to try to address LB's concern), the previous comments would still be there for consideration by the closer and in their original format.

  And refactoring is a non-starter. First, you would have to abduce the involved status of every user who has already commented here, requiring a census of each thread linked to in all the forgoing discussion, and cross reference all of the couple of dozen editors against each such thread. Which, fine--this part will have to be done to meet LB's request at all. I'll do that--that will take me around an hour and half, maybe a little longer? I can do that as a matter of courtesy to a fellow community member who asked politely, despite the fact that I am the one who made the proposal.

  So, fine now you have your list of involved and uninvolved. Nevermind for the moment that there is going to be universal disagreement with every name you put in the involved list, and that's soon going to create yet more sprawling meta discussion that isn't really serving to do anything but bloat the page, slow consensus and further inflame/polarize perspectives. You've got a more immediate problem: Now you have to edit the busiest and most closely watched page on the project to meticulously rearrange dozens of posts per those categorizations, while trying not to damage the flow of the discussion beyond recognition (impossible, probably), or create situations where you cause someone's comments to be read without appropriate context.

  If you tried to do all of that in one edit, there would be new edits by the time you got done that would likely complicate what the whole result. If you did it in a sequence of edits, you would be fighting constant edit conflicts, while creating many more for every user trying to edit ANI, in addition to direct conflicts with changes in this discussion. And that's assuming that someone didn't revert your first edits immediately. Which, someone certainly would, because none of this is consistent with TPG or how existing threads are meant to be edited.

  I could keep going with the technical hurdles, but I think I've made my point. The best I personally can do for you is create a list of involved parties for the closer to consider. In terms of impacting the ultimate outcome, I think it will have roughly the same influence as a hamster's fart in a hurricane, understand. But what the hell--I make pro forma arguments here on occasion; I can do my best to accommodate this one.

  At the same time, let me be real with both of you for a moment. None of this is normal process. Remotely. This is just never done. What do I mean by never? Well I can tell you that you are talking to someone who has reviewed ANI a few times a week, most weeks, for the last 15 years. I can't imagine I have seen anything less than a thousand cban discussions in that time. And I can't recall a single time that I saw one organized in the fashion that is being sought here. There may be a worthwhile arguments about the benefits of such an organization, but it is not established practice in the community and no one has a right to expect it. Even the policy language in question says "May"; it is explicitly non-mandatory.

  So, I would submit to both of you that anyone who tried to overturn a consensus decision on the CBAN (either way) by appealing to such a technicality could very well create a rapid unwinding of remaining patience and WP:ROPE from the community. I'm going out of my way to do whatever can be done to try to avoid that outcome, because it would be the worst possible version of how things could play out from here. But I'm one editor and won't be able to stop the knock-on effects if that broader community patience level does in fact get worn down by pedantic arguments about procedural dicta regarding fully discretionary options in organization that have never been exercised in the history of community ban discussions, that I am aware. Considering the format here is fully consistent with the norm for such discussions, issues with the format are unlikely to be perceived as serious enough a problem to overturn a clear consensus, if there is one.

  Of course, if either you two wants to try refactoring the discussion, I'm not going to stop you. But I think that any such experiment is likely to come to an end in five minutes with half of the present populace of ANI pissed off at the experimenter. Personally, I think a list of involved parties, combined with LB having their own section, addresses most of the concerns raised anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to respond within this collapsed narrative, or if a response is okay but should be outside the collapsed narrative. Based on what you wrote, you are intimately - excruciatingly - familiar with these processes.

I think what I wrote was misconstrued. Based on what had been written by Kowal2701, my vote is moot, because I'm involved. But restricting voting by involved editors has never been enforced. So my vote can stand...? But identified as not-a-vote-to-be-counted. Or does my vote count, because the process has never really cared about involved editor's voting or not. It strikes me as a loophole ready to be exploited, and in my blunt manner, I've a feeling I know who would exploit it, if the vote went against the-editor-subject-to-the-proposal. So all I see coming of this a future, epic adventure once again into the bowels of a bureaucracy that I've no appetite for. So, I expressed my opinion about 'do it over' in that light. I have no control of the process, obviously, if it's untenable to 'undo', then that is that.

I presume from what I understood of your narrative that you are 'in charge' of this particular 'litigation'. So it seems it's entirely up to you what becomes of it. You say a challenge of the vote would not fly. I will take your word for it.

My only question is...should I strike through my vote? Should I change it to "moot", or "NOTAVOTE"? Should I delete my vote? Should I just leave it untouched, since it would seem everyone materially involved would know the status of my vote (other than me, at this point), so why bother? Sigh. I think I'll go whack my thumb with a hammer. Over and over. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Re what Snow Rise hatted: All I'm asking is that involved parties' votes are tagged/flagged. Surely it is easily determined that Springee, Anastrophe, Qwirkle, and AadamentAardvark were very involved in the discussions in question. Several other editors contributed to the discussions in great length. Whomever closes this should have the info. It doesn't require starting over, just tagging/flagging a half-dozen or so votes. Why is it wikilawyering when I give policies, but not when others do? Why is it ROPE of me to ask that POLICY be adhered to when it's my neck on the line? Lightbreather (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The person closing it will have that info. You've mentioned it and the closer will read the entire discussion and linked diffs and discussions as part of the close. Although the CBAN policy says discussions may be organized in that way it isn't required and is very rarely done. It is expected that the closer will appropriately weigh involved and uninvolved comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If this is always true, I am sincerely relieved. Because I get tired of having WP:essays thrown at me without diffs. I get tired of following and citing policy, and being accused of wikilawyering. ALTACCOUNT is optional. DIFFs are optional. CBAN is optional. One can see how an editor in a contentious topic area could easily be WP:POVRAILROADed when it boils down to he-said/she-said when she is outnumbered six-to-one or more. Lightbreather (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence for a topic ban is insufficient and this really looks like an attempt by involved editors in a relatively low-engagement article set to remove an inconvenient interlocutor. Simonm223 (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have to agree with Simonm223 and Loki here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - LB uses sources by the rules and has come under attack because she is an easy target with a view contrary to that of a majority of editors in this subject area. No further action is needed. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like pretty clear cut so-called evidence of disruption right after coming off a big sanction. If you are consistently going against consensus, aka the majority of editors in a subject area, you are creating disruption. Liking the pov they are pushing is no excuse. PackMecEng (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Correlation is not causation. Or rather, the existence of disruption in a topic area doesn't mean that some particular editor is being disruptive. I say this from experience, as someone who participated in the trans healthcare topic area back when it was a trashfire. It's important to distinguish "this seems like a lot of heat" from "Lightbreather is the one at fault for setting this page on fire".

  If Lightbreather is citing sources correctly, etc etc, and the people she's arguing with aren't (I don't know whether this is the case or not for sure but I do think it's a reasonable possibility), it would be them being disruptive and not her. If everyone is following policy and just disagreeing there's no disruption; this is just a contentious content dispute. The existence of a lot of disagreement on a page after Lightbreather was unbanned is nowhere near enough to say that Lightbreather is being disruptive. Loki (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is a flawed interpretation of disruption that makes an incorrect exception for if you feel they are right. Also looking at the so-called evidence, its fairly clear the disruption is NOT just I disagree but here are sourced. Its going against consensus multiple times and places, badgering, and overall bludgeoning a topic area they were recently found to be majorly disruptive in and blocked from. I appreciate your anecdotal experience on similar subjects but it is not relatable here or anywhere really, since it's easily counted with well my experience is different. What counts here is policy, which again, does not make an exception for being right. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  If the basis for disruption is one of policy, is it irrelevant as to which view/interpretation of policy is being misapplied (if policy is indeed being violated/ignored)? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Going against the majority (even if that majority is overwhelming) is not the same as "going against consensus". We have policy which defines what consensus is for our purposes (see WP:CON). TarnishedPath^talk 00:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  In this case it was the majority AND consensus. As is usually the case. PackMecEng (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you provide specific examples of the edits made that went against consensus, including a link to the consensus in question? Katzrockso (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng I will reiterate my request for the edits in question. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't see your message. They are linked above by others. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I appreciate that SnowRise is proposing a restrained remedy here. Since the disruptions being communicated in the discussions above happened soon after the old ArbCon sanctions were lifted, a TBAN seems like the smallest step to try to solve the problem. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support All parties would be better off with a topic ban in place, per Snowrise. If there had never been a previous sanction, I'd probably be on the warning/oppose side, but there's a lower bar here considering the past disruptive conduct in this topic area. It's not part of the reason I support, but I'd be absolutely miffed if I were an ArbCom member who heard LB's appeal given the bait and switch present here. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of ArbCom members from that appeal if they were inclined to accept if the appeal had been "I intend to edit nearly exclusively in gun control, and engage in WWI-style trench edit warfare on a few specific topics in gun control." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  And, since sanctions are forward looking, I expect that if there is no topic ban, we'll have this whole dog-and-pony show on this for the umpteenth time. Short of a topic ban, I have little expectation that this won't end up another dreary ArbCom case, that will end up worse for everyone involved, including LB. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you proposing topic bans against @Anastrophe, @Thebiguglyalien and @Springee? Because, if the argument is that the whole conversation is disruptive, that's a very different discussion than the one we've been having. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Warnings for them would be fine, and I would support a warning for several of them if proposed. But Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior in this topic area so egregious that it resulted in significant sanctions. Lightbreather's history of being able to cope with people with strong disagreements is like a mid-2010s ArbCom index, and this appears to indicate that nothing has changed. I have no issue with people who oppose the sanction, but don't act all surprised when we have to do the exact same thing in a month or three months or six months down the road, but far messier. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  See I would support a logged warning for Lightbreather if the other parties involved in this dispute received the same. I would not support a harsher response for Lightbreather than the others. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The same response *is* a harsher response for the others, as they don't have the same history. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Markup! I knew you were AI Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I guarantee that if AI made nearly as many grammar stupidities as I do, they'd have canned the whole idea years ago! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  "But Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior..." I'm out with my granddaughter for awhile, but when I return I'll address this. Lightbreather (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What did I do? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, because it is blatantly obvious that Lightbreather isn't the only person engaging in disruptive behaviour, if she actually is at all. The 'consensus' she has argued against consists largely of the same gang that has stonewalled and obstructed every discussion of firearms-related issues for decades, in order to promote the views of the US gun lobby, and to ensure that any article on what should be a global topic is dominated by the narrow confines of US discourse on the topic. This is supposed to be a global project, not a forum for the promotion of gun sales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I tend to empathize as a longtime contributor within particular areas of this broad subject. I would agree that the economic and political aspects tend to blur how editors try to interpret and apply policy, especially those that carry inherently Western democratic views on gun politics. The vast majority of these are located in Western Europe, with the US leading the main divergence due to a percentage of those considered to promote unrestrictive gun rights. Editors in these topic areas, including myself, are prone to the frustration of seeing sources representing "both sides" without considering the rest of world. DN (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I know I struggled with these kind of sentiments. I delayed making the proposal nearly a day after it first felt to me that it was the only way to resolve the discussion, because I didn't feel happy about it. I don't want to make a proposal that could remove a reliable voice against gun lobby shills or SPAs pushing a 2nd amendment absolutism POV. But for me this was the least bad option. And it's not just that I think the rules need to be applied equally to all editors and that in a behavioural discussion, we should check our personal perspectives on the underlying subject matter, though I do believe in both those principles.

  Rather, the main point I would emphasize instead is that when an editor regularly loses deploys tendentious tactics, it kind of doesn't matter which way they are pushing on the content. Because the resulting disruption always benefits pro-gun SPAs. Why? Because under normal circumstances these parties are always working at a disadvantage when it comes to the corpus of academic and empirical sourcing. Experienced, neutral editors can use this as a fundamental backstop when dealing with SPAs or other POV-inclined editors seeking to skew content in an undue manner.

  Provided that everyone stays unflappable enough not to cooperate in muddying the waters with other issues. An editor who comes out swinging every time, determined to fight fire with napalm...they can be net negatives even if they bring substantial knowledge and dedication to the topic. I wrote a much larger version of this paragraph originally, but the truth is I don't think LB (or the discussion) will benefit from another post enumerating perceived issues. Suffice it to say, I think they run far too hot on this topic. Whether that is a reflection of their feelings about the underlying subject matter, or an artifact of their previous hisotory in this area, I would not want to speculate. Some of each would be understandable, certainly. I just think they need to take their passion to another place that doesn't bring them to a full head of steam quite so instantly and constantly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support sadly. I think if Lightbreather had taken one of many opportunities here to self-reflect rather than reflect on others' behaviour, it would be different. The problem is there are multiple issues. Some are interpersonal: LB and Anastrophe - based on what's happened here and some of the linked discussions - just shouldn't be interacting, though seeing only the last few weeks of a fairly epic history, I wouldn't comment on whether that should be 1-way or 2-way. Some are to do with the content area. What I'd seen up till now (which included aspersions, a healthy dose of battleground behaviour, very frequent lapses in WP:FOC, and not a whole lot of WP:AGF) wouldn't have convinced me all the way to a TBAN, but I was pretty convinced by Hemmers' summary to show that the topic area disruption does reach that level.

When confronted with the evidence of all this, I've mainly seen LB turn the focus onto other editors. To paraphrase, "If I'm bludgeoning then he's bludgeoning", or "That was only because the other bad editors were disruptive first". If Lightbreather took the concerns seriously, she might have suggested how she'll change her editing going forward in light of what ws raised here. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Request As Kowal2701 pointed out earlier, WP:CBAN says: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. Unambiguously-involved !votes may be tagged as such. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made."

It also says: "Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response." I would appreciate this. It would be nice if the closer could easily see who is involved and who is uninvolved. And for my comments not to get lost amongst the other posts. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I've cited comments above of LB escalating fights and casting aspersions against Springree and others. Further I would invite you to check out her talk page where her and another editor tag team and cast aspersions that I was stalking her because I mentioned that I got a notification for a thread I was tagged in. I had to be backed up by four different editors before they let up. This kind of angst and behavior makes certain elements of this cite exhausting and it should not be that way. WP:DE does not just apply to edits themselves but it applies to the comments, insinuations, attacks against other editors when they are in the opposition. AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I first noticed Lightbreather on the Talk:Republican Party (United States) page. Several discussions were going on across different sections unrelated to this topic ban discussion. Lightbreather and another editor began accusing a third editor of bad faith and other disparaging remarks that are related to this topic ban discussion WP:UNCIVIL. The accusations had nothing to do with the the Republican Party discussion, causing confusion, and were disruptive, resulting in the topic being discussed getting derailed. After seeing this discussion about lightbreather on the noticeboard I thought it important that I add my comments about their disruptive actions spilling over to unrelated talk pages. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Unless I'm missing something, the first diff you link has nothing to do with gun control. How does that support a TBAN from gun control? TarnishedPath^talk 01:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was pinged to that talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  What I listed happened on the Republican party talk page, but it was a spill over of this gun control article fallout. It made no sense at the time when I saw it over there, but now it does. You can see by what the other editors are listing in the diffs that lightbreather was on numerous pages about this issue and other issues. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I. WAS. PINGED. TO. THAT. TALK. PAGE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was responding to TarnishedPath and never saw your previous comment because you added it while I was typing. Dd3r1n0 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Considering your own comportment in that page @Dd3r1n0 I would suggest you want to avoid leaning into this line of discussion too much. Simonm223 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support The trawling down below is uninspiring, many of the cited diffs bear little relation to gun politics, and Springee is not (and cannot) be involved in this discussion.

I do agree that the ArbCom case isn't of much relevance here, since the sanctions have already been successfully appealed. However, looking at the post-appeal period, there simply hasn't been an editing history between the appeal and the plunge back into personalized disputes within the topic area. If this is all about the sockpuppet Iljhgtn, I think that they've stopped being of relevance long ago, looking at some of the recently edited articles by LB. Stikkyy (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a reason why gun articles are a CT. Some of what is shown above could be seen as low level incivility and battlegrounding but I'm seeing enough to think that this isn't exclusive to LB. If people really think that sanctions are required for "peaceful" editing in the area then the wider context should be looked at. Also, what seems to be the main the inciting incident is related to long standing differences of opinion regarding how to handle historic discussions that a involve socks. Given the amount of non-sock editors who contributed to that consensus I don't see the need to reset, but I know others feel differently. Scribolt (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on Lightbreather or if they were to be sanctioned they should be sanctioned along with others (or sanction everybody like what CoffeeCrumbs proposed). If Lightbreather’s behavior is actually subpar, then by that same standard the other parties would be guilty. It just seems like one against many causing the one to get irritated and frustrated against the many that oppose change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40220-54 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The difference is one has a logged history in this topic area of containing in a sub par fashion and the others do not. With that, would you think they should all get the same sanction and what would they be? PackMecEng (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  That isn't entirely true, as has already been pointed out. See , where another involved contributor (North8000) was indefinitely site banned by ArbCom (ban subsequently lifted). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the discussions and talk pages in question I dont see North being an issue. So not sure why it would matter they have a past sanctions? Could you elaborate? PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because North8000 and I have a past and it's not clear he can be impartial in this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, if you didn't think that past 'sub par fashion' behaviour was relevant, why did you bring it up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  ATG, I didn't bring it up. Unprompted, replying to my comment about how only the one person that is causing disruption in the topic area has prior sanctions in that topic area, you drop someone unrelated to say they have past sanctions as well. Which makes no damn sense, and why I asked you to clarify wtf you are talking about. Which, I will point out you still have not done. So to wrap up, your comment about North is weird and off topic and seems unrelated to this discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  This account has one lone edit on wikipedia: this vote. Today. I would strongly argue that this is likely a form of socking. All other voters here are members of the community, actively engaged in building an encyclopedia, here for some time, and with meaningful edit histories. An account with zero history just "happens" to come across a TBAN proposal and just happens to have read the discussion and evidence (or lack thereof) and just happens to feel inclined to tender a vote?

  No, not tenable, not believable. In all likelihood, the owner/user is a member of the community, but using underhanded tactics to manipulate a vote. And while I'm quite sure not a soul will believe me, I'd have the same complaint if the vote were the other way. Manipulating votes is unethical. I have no tolerance for underhanded behavior.

  Unfortunately, I had a look at the ban policy, and it doesn't address this. Nor do I have any way to prove this. But a single edit temporary account is not a 'member of the community', and the vote should not count. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Either present evidence that the TA is sockpuppetting or strike your comments. TAs are members of the community, just like editors with permanent accounts and permitted to edit here and participate in these discussions without involved editors casting aspersions against them and trying to disqualify them.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  TAs change frequently (that's the T of TA), and there are many active editors who have chosen not to make an account. It's convenient if someone wants to evade scrutiny of their edit history, but it's not guaranteed to be WP:LOUTSOCK or even bad faith. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, but these arguments look like WP:BADFAITH and maybe out of place. Consider the context here, LB is recently brought here accused of being disruptive in discussions with editors, such as yourself, and or otherwise violating the terms of her sanctions, even mentions going ten years back. Still, I don't recall diffs being presented as proof of violation (links if anyone has them?). Then we see comments like this and we are supposed to either silently nod our heads or risk getting mixed in with the drama and potentially getting called out ourselves. To clarify, it's becoming difficult for me to navigate this thread and steward my own levels of hypocrisy. I wish no one the wrath of arbcom. Part of the reasons I try to avoid ANI discussions is because they simply begin to become a free-for-all, just like on article talk pages. If there are double standards being applied here it is a shame not to acknowledge them. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support As I stated in my above comment, there seem to be persistent violations of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUD, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CANVASS, all of which occurred after Lightbreather's topic ban was lifted. Generally, disruptive behavior following the lifting of a topic ban (or any sanction for that matter) is supposed to cease or at least improve, in this case it has either stayed the same as before the topic ban or even arguably gotten worse. Therefore, I think an indefinite topic ban is the appropriate sanction here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, per Katzrockso, AndyTheGrump, Simonm223. The only actions I think would be acceptable is a firm warning to all 3 main parties, and possibly a longer look into the other involved editors. Hooples (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support What stuck out to me the most was her behavior on her personal talk pages showcased here--titled "Reply to Anastrophe's latest sermon" [] and here titled "Firearms 1RR":[]. In both instances the editor in question displays behavior that I would deem WP:UNCIVIL. Additionally when looking at the page statistics of the Magazine (firearms) page here: [] it is clear that this editor has risks to WP:OWN the edits on the page for quite sometime regularly ranking as the number 1 or number 2 editor on the page which indicates a need to dominate the article's edits and content. Lightbreather per the edit history on the Magazine (firearms) appears to have returned to editing material related to guns after the User:Iljhgtn was banned from the site for being a sockpuppet but appears to then go overboard and has edited the page in an aggressive manner that on occasion has violated WP:BRD as well as WP:IDONTHEARYOU with these two diffs regarding disputes about merged content: [] and [] where it appears she ignores consensus and instead wants to repeatedly force her own version of content into the article. Additionally the behavior on the talk page including this post titled "Apologies" where she left this comment: I am sorry I wasted everyone's time. Especially Anastrophe, who got so agitated he felt it necessary to shame me on this article talk page. He had no choice but to violate WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE policy and sully his spotless behavior record. whole post can be read here: [] which also may be construed as WP:BATTLEGROUND in addition to not coming off as an editor who is truly apologetic for past behavior, but instead comes off as sarcastic and acting in bad faith. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• It was sarcastic and I apologized earlier. Also, I hope readers have noted Anastrophe's (and others') "battleground" and sarcasm when they read these discussions (or in some cases, incomplete discussions). Lightbreather (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  (written apparently simultaneously with LB's reply) I would only interject to point out, if it wasn't blatantly obvious, I was equally if not more uncivil in the discussion proximate to 'Reply to Anastrophe's latest sermon'. My behavior elsewhere was also disruptive. My behavior however is not explicitly at play; it's ancillary to the proposal, though sanctions on me may be consequent. However I felt in all fairness it's appropriate to acknowledge that civility was wanting from both of us. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Something needs to be done to mitigate the problem and this is the only proposed measure. Also the immense whataboutism construction about another editor below here I find to be indicative. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Simonm223. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I have hhad to deal with WP:BLUDGEON when discussing gun-related topics with Lightbreather. I have also been tagged in places months later for conversations that have already been finished, specifically on "high capacity magazines". I have had gun-related discussions with Lightbreather which never made sense to me, particuraly on the Ruger 10/22, see diff. Guz13 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  How exactly does that diff show any mischief? TarnishedPath^talk 23:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it does. It just seems to demonstrate a difference of opinion. If that were grounds for a topic ban, then I don't think any controversial topic would have any editors whatsoever.

  For what it's worth, the citation does support the claim Lightbreather made:

  Aftermarket accessories for the very popular Ruger 10/22 self-loading carbine undoubtedly stirred more money-making innovations among independent manufacturers than any other models ever produced in the American market. Hi-capacity magazines for this gun became the hottest selling item to date followed by folding stocks and dress up kits

  Katzrockso (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  In that whole discussion (Talk:Magazine (firearms)#Inclusion of 10/22 material in HCM section of article), there has been 16 comments to date and Lightbreather has made 5 of those comments. Guz linked that diff in relation to their allegation of BLUDGEON. While it looks like Lightbreather has commented more than others in that particular discussion, and they could probably do with leaving it at that, it's not what I would call BLUDGEON. TarnishedPath^talk 23:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support full topic ban for gun topics, broadly construed, as the only way to stop them from wasting so much time and effort of other editors. A WP:CBAN here would be the best way to stop the disruptive editing by this person for this topic. Does Lightbreather also not have any limit for how much they can comment in this thread? They've already made a very large number of posts and accusations against others and appear to be WP:BLUDGEON-ing here too. Can we get a word count? Number of comments alone does not cover the issues as much as word count and the hostility towards consensus and working together with civility. Staticspector (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  You won't find it recorded in any PAG of which I am aware, but there's a principle that is generally followed in bahevioural threads at AN/I--and especially when sanctions are on the table--wherein the usual presumption of reasonable brevity in number and length of responses is relaxed a bit for the party against whom action is sought. Mind you, I don't think LB's choice of how to implement that prerogative has done them many favours, in the aggregate. I think both the sheer amount of responses and the general one-directional view on the blame between them and their opponents, is a mistake. But in terms of whether they should be permitted such a volume of response, I see no problem with that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Per AndytheGrump and Carrite, LB isn't the main problem here. It would be useful for some of those active on these topics and advocating for the topic ban of this clearly inconvenient editor to reflect on the fact that they themselves are also the ones contributing to the walled POV garden that many of these articles have become. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as too one-sided. Jessintime (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  We could purpose sanctions on others involved. Where would you start? PackMecEng (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bludgeon much? Jessintime (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. What a weird thing to say. PackMecEng (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will note that you have asked multiple editors who are opposed to sanctioning Lightbreather in this discussion about what sanctions that they want to propose while you yourself are supporting sanctions. (Personally, I don't think you have met the definition for bludgeoning, but can see where it is coming from.) --Super Goku V (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yup, I asked R3YBOl originally but they moved their comment without moving the reply so I made a new one under theirs. Even so, it is no where near bludgeoning, to the point that I question if Jess knows what bludgeoning means. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  And multiple editors have gone into in-depth challenges of those who have voted in support, including plenty of aggressively hostile characterizations of them. It's been a free-for-all. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support To call Lightbreather deeply obsessed with the topic is an understatement. Just looking at the numbers of edits in article space, such as Gun politics in the United States (506), National Rifle Association (409), Gun show loophole (385), Assault weapon (315) and Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (284), shows only part of the problem. The real issue is at the talk pages for the same set of articles, highlighted by Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban (484), Talk:Gun politics in the United States (425), Talk:Gun show loophole (423), Talk:Magazine (firearms) (293) and Talk:Gun control (239), where Lightbreather has been the main reason that these discussions go on forever, never arriving anywhere. Having seen the overall depth of both the obsession and the over-the-top argumentativeness there and at way too many other articles in the sphere of guns, weapons and magazines, there is a clear problem. This chronic habit of editing articles and talk pages with guns blazing all the time and the inability to separate their personal views from allowing the community to settle on a consensus is why these topics have been so unnecessarily fraught and contentious for far too long. A topic ban in the area might finally allow this editing space to reach the necessary and difficult middle ground that Lightbreather has simply not allowed to happen. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  The idea that the necessary and difficult middle ground has not been reached because of Lightbreather is with absolutely no merit, a proposition so disconnected from reality one wonders how any reasonable person can reach such a conclusion. You present precisely no evidence in favor of any of the numerous negative claims about Lightbreather, pointing solely to edit counts, which offer nothing but an insight into Lightbreather's length of tenure on Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no correlation between edit count and length of tenure at all, so there's no insight to be had. There are editors here who've been active more than two decades with less than a thousand edits. And editors here who've been active less than a decade with more than half a million edits. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Editing a talk page a lot is not against any policy or guideline. Katzrockso (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Who, exactly, are you suggesting made such a claim? Non-sequitur. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a bit of a WP:GNOME. Also, have you looked at Springee's talk-page counts? Talk:Andy Ngo (787), Talk:Republican Party (629), Talk:AR-15-style rifle (518)... Or Anastrophe's?. Six of his top-10 main-space and TP counts are gun-related. Lightbreather (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Now if only that could be laid out on a timeline, where it'd show the vast majority of it evaporated for a nearly eleven year interval. Wonder what that correlates with... cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If the insinuation here is that absent Lightbreather disturbing the walled garden that characterizes gun-related articles on Wikipedia, you do not significantly contribute to gun articles, I would suggest that weighs more negatively on your conduct than hers. Katzrockso (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's easy to casually sling about terms like 'walled-garden', sounds impressive, no evidence of course obtains. Ever. LB pushes POV relentlessly; I'd hazard you'd have a hard time finding POV edits in gun-related articles by me - or pretty much any articles. Not saying it's impossible; but unlikely. Countering a POV warrior is a good thing. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Or maybe you and Springee and others are POV defending. Consider the ridiculous amount of energy you all put into defending the word "cosmetic" in one article only to concede three months later that it was overused. It's easy to push or defend a POV when you're in a well-established editorial majority. Read How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page Lightbreather (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's a real problem. There has been a persistent and pervasive multi-editor effort to keep information about mass shootings out of articles about specific firearms and firearm components. Frankly there's a lot of CPUSH here and this looks like removing one person who cared enough to push back. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's for the same reason that we don't go into detail about murders committed using knives in articles about technical aspects of different knives or other inanimate objects that humans use to harm other humans. The POV push is to make anything gun-related a lightning point for the POV of those who revile inanimate objects, rather than the humans who use them to harm others. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  By the way, don't be shy - post a link to your own xtools stats! The contrast from mine is...breathtaking. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support While some (but not all) of the opposes might have merit, in my view this is an area Lightbreather simply cannot edit in without causing themselves (and others) an inordinate amount of stress. The sheer number of posts above (including labeling any other editor's observations or comments as 'accusations') make this pretty clear. Since they can't seem to stay way, and then complain about the stress and other issues caused by editing in these topics, a CBAN would make that decision for them and possibly allow them to recover and edit more productively in areas that don't cause so much stress. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks much more like several editors who strongly dislike one another getting into repetitive arguments than a case where banning only Lightbreather will solve the problem. There is plenty of poor behaviour to go around, and singling out one participant is not a fair outcome. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  looks like you moved your comment without moving the reply to it. But whay sanctions would you purpose on others and why? PackMecEng (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per e.g. Scribolt, Carrite, R3YBOl, but also a bit per ATG et al. Maybe more editors should be engaging in these articles and talk page discussions. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Not seeing anything actionable here. I get Sluzzelin's point, but I'm not touching any US-related articles, as I may have to travel there in the future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I have been observing Lightbreather on and off wiki for some time now ever since my participation in certain AfDs initiated against their articles and their subsequent forceful and consensus-defeating reopening. Considering their disposition while they edit in the gun control area and their countenance towards editors who disagree with them, I have no faith in their ability to contribute constructively here, at the best case, at least in this subject. Their repeated promises to keep away from this subject followed by their WP:POINTY and uncivil inability to do so puts me in this unfortunate position of having to support a reinstatement of their T-Ban. I'm simply baffled by the number of noticeboards involved and the animus conflicts they find themselves amidst when they invariably wander back to this subject. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really edit on gun pages, but the one interaction I had with the editor in question was them accusing another editor of WP:COI . I have read through many - but not all - comments for and against the TBAN, and it appears that the editor has a history of similar violations of WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:BLUDGEON, in addition to counter-productive editing spanning more than a decade. Notably the reversion of the unanimous merge of high-capacity magazine , the sarcastic response to the pushback to her efforts , and the doubling down on said sarcasm which Lightbreather themself described as "smarmy" and "backhanded" . Lightbreather claims to have later apologized "for real", but how can we take this as genuine given the years of history showing WP:GAMING and only "behaving" with propriety when it seems strategic? Given the jurisprudence, if you will, I think that a restoration of the TBAN, at the very least would be the best outcome for Wikipedia's coverage of gun-related issues. Interestingly Lightbreather wrote this essay: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is a myth. A warning against some others, whose conduct was less than ideal, but didn't rise to the level of Lightbreather's, is in order. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per LokiTheLiar and Scribolt. Disagreeing with a local majority is not by itself disruptive editing, and consensus is determined by the strength of policy-based arguments rather than head count. I also understand why Lightbreather believed that edits and merge outcomes originating with a now-blocked sock warranted renewed scrutiny.

Genabab (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, Lightbreather isn't the root cause of the issues people have identified. Many people have pointed out that others have done the things Lightbreather is accused of here; and the only answer anyone has given is that that should be raised separately. But many kinds of misbehavior lead to reciprocial misbehavior; when an issue is endemic to a topic area, we should determine the root cause, and I think it is hard to argue that Lightbreather is the root cause here. It is natural for someone's responses to seem like rules-lawyering if all the arguments they encounter are themselves rules-lawyering, for instance, or to seem intransigent when they are encountering stonewalling. When talking about things like refusal to accept consensus and engaging in extensive litigation when things don't go their way, many of the people arguing against Lightbreather themselves refused to accept a consensus that didn't go their way - and the very fact that that discussion didn't go their way shows that their argument that Lightbreather is purely intransigent isn't true, suggesting that they are overstating their consensuses (a common feature of stonewalling.) I think that reading the discussion surrounding that suggests that some of the people pushing to sanction Lightbreather here have engaged in WP:STONEWALLing behavior, attempting to use the discussions that did go their way (including, as Lightbreather accurately points out, older discussions tainted by sockpuppetry) as a bludgeon to ignore ones that didn't, and that the "intransigence" that they see from Lightbreather is the result of this misbehavior on their own part rather than anything else. It is in particular entirely reasonable to rerun discussion that were tainted by sockpuppetry, and unreasonable to engage in stonewalling surrounding them. Either way, this is complex enough that if people want to pursue it it should probably go to ArbCom, so the behavior of all sides can be viewed in context and everyone involved can have a chance to defend themselves equally. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As said some of those wanting him banned are just as, if not more so, "guilty" of the same. Maybe Boomerang applies here as well for some pushing this? ContentEditman (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I've noticed some “oppose” !votes where the rationale appears to be that there are other editors who deserve to be sanctioned who aren't discussed here. I'm not sure what to make of this argument- it's not based on policy and can be true, to various degrees, in almost every discussion. Theres always someone else who has done something worse than whoever is being discussed, but that doesn’t stop all the other ANI discussions. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  There has hardly been evidence presented that there was any disruptive conduct whatsoever. But when it comes down to it, whether or not particular behavior is disruptive can only be truly understood in the fuller context of a set of discussions or a broader discourse. If other editors are inciting disruption, then what might look like disruptive editing might be justifiable.

  ANI is hardly a policy-based forum in the first place - it's largely a morass of random opinions based solely on selectively presented diffs, typically contextless, designed to elicit an emotional reaction and justify the harshest possible sanction without any consideration for actual policy (which is WP:PREVENTATIVE and WP:NOPUNISH). There is no rationale to ANI. Katzrockso (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support Many of the 'Oppose' !votes consist of brief pile-on statements such as 'per above' or 'I agree' without engaging with the underlying issue. There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination, including Lightbreather's involvement on Wikipediocracy and her request to move a conversation into a private area. Regardless, the central concern is the significant amount of editor time being spent on this one individual's disruptive editing, rather than on constructive improvements to the encyclopedia. A topic ban appears necessary at this stage to resolve the situation before it requires further escalation at AE. ~2026-40600-40 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  If I may say something. I’ll repeat that it is certainly a serious mistake to be considering her ban. The user is a woman who has been harassed by a group of users who claimed to be upholding the status quo. This is textbook systemic bias: users are focusing a lot on Lightbreather losing her temper, while ignoring the fact that these users, who are Second Amendment advocates and seem to support the use of guns, have monopolized the site. They’ve tried to use somewhat strange explanations, such as claiming that guns are “inanimate objects” and that the history of shootings and death statistics related to them shouldn’t be brought up. Sure, man.

  Respectful editing can, in fact, be a weapon. If a group of editors resorts to absurd analogies to wear down a dissenting editor until she loses her temper, it is they who are disrupting the encyclopedia, not her.

  Can the “consensus” (false, in my opinion; echo chamber bias) agree to violate NPOV? I think it cannot.

  Furthermore, in my opinion, LB's rude behavior was intentionally provoked by her opponents as a strategy to get her banned. Lightbreather is not perfect (no human being is)—she is loud, angry, and her "ringing" hurts people's ears. But she is only ringing because the house is on fire. Banning Lightbreather might make the noticeboards quieter, but it will be "the silence of an encyclopedia that gave up its pursuit of neutrality." Oppose the Ban. Best regards, SilentHalo (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOX. SilentHalo you should strike your comments. ~2026-40879-72 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Pointing out that the house is on fire is not "soapboxing", and I will not strike the alarm simply because its ringing disturbs the sleep of those currently holding the matches. SilentHalo (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination There are, but not from the "oppose" votes. Grandpallama (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I must admire the laser sharp focus that allows a man to look about the burning dumpster he stands in, and note that there is more smoke in the other corner. Qwirkle (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm curious by what means someone makes such an assertive comment. How would you know what the other oppose votes are doing or not doing off-wiki? It's a strange construct. I've no idea if there's been any off-wiki coordination of 'support' votes, because I don't engage with any WP editors offsite; so...again. Interesting construct presented, asserting a negative as an absolute. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  "The unsubstantiated claim we didn't object to was reversed to one we dislike?! Clutch pearls! The vapors!" Grandpallama (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well that's incoherent. Let me map it out for you. "There are, but not from the "oppose" votes." The only way you could assert that is if you had knowledge of the activities of all "oppose" voters. That would be quite something; every single "oppose" voter has discussed their vote offsite...as a group...that you've participated in...in one venue? That's really quite fascinating. It sounds like a mustered voting bloc if so. You could calm my concerns with some above board explanation - here, rather than in a private discussion offsite, which I've neither access nor interest in. But - no matter. I've no expectation of indulgence. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are also indications of possible off-wiki coordination.

  I've seen the discussion at Wikipediocracy about Lightbreather being discussed here and I didn't see any canvassing at all. If you have evidence supporting your wild claim, I'd invite you to share it with the arb committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. We are about to make an error. We are treating the symptom and protecting the disease.

From what I see, the proposal on the table is to ban Lightbreather because her presence in the firearms topic area creates "disruption," "heat," and "exhaustion." But I ask this board to look closely at why that heat exists. Lightbreather is not the cause of the disruption. She is literally the medical Contrast Agent.

In medicine, a contrast agent is a dye injected into a patient. On its own, it causes a reaction, it raises the temperature, it is uncomfortable. But you inject it because it is the only way to make a hidden tumor visible on an MRI.

The firearms articles on Wikipedia have become a hidden tumor. They are a localized, highly coordinated "Walled Garden" managed by a dedicated faction of 2nd Amendment absolutists and firearms technicians. They maintain a quiet, sanitized monopoly on these articles by utilizing weaponized bureaucracy to exhaust any outsider who dares to introduce mainstream, globally neutral, or gun-control-related facts.

Lightbreather is the dye. The moment she entered the system, the tumor lit up for all of us to see.

I urge the closing administrators to reject this ban for the following three reasons:

1. Lightbreather is accused of "bludgeoning" the debate. But let’s look at what she is actually arguing against. When she tried to introduce reliable sources regarding "high-capacity magazines," her opponents did not debate the sources. Instead, they engaged in a tactic of pure, Kafkaesque exhaustion. As admitted on this very board, editors User:Anastrophe and User:Springee dragged the debate into absurd tangents about wheelbarrows, the wheelbases of trucks, and clothes dryers. They demanded that Lightbreather provide a strict definition for a "high-capacity washing machine" before they would allow her to edit a firearms article.

When a woman is forced to debate household appliances just to add a citation about a gun, she is not the one disrupting the encyclopedia. She is being filibustered by a hostile local majority. We are preparing to punish a user because she finally snapped after being subjected to psychological waterboarding by bureaucracy.

2. The primary argument against Lightbreather is that she "edits against consensus." But what is "consensus" in a walled garden? If six wolves and one sheep take a vote on what’s for dinner, that is a consensus. It does not make it a neutral consensus. Wikipedia policy clearly states that local consensus on a single article cannot override the global Wikipedia mandate for a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Lightbreather is frequently the only editor on these pages attempting to balance the narrative against a hyper-focused, pro-gun status quo. If you ban her, you are not restoring peace. You are merely silencing the last dissenting voice in an echo chamber. You are officially handing the keys of the firearms articles over to an advocacy group.

3. Finally, we must address the chilling admission by user Anastrophe. Lightbreather was previously banned 12 years ago. Anastrophe openly admitted in this thread that he lobbied for her unbanning just to see if she would break her promise not to edit gun articles. He boasts: "The outcome of the rescission of the gun control topic ban was inevitable... I warned of this." This is not the behavior of an editor protecting the encyclopedia. This is the behavior of a hunter waiting in a duck blind. Anastrophe and his colleagues did not welcome an editor back, so they laid a trap. They monitored her, swarmed her edits, demanded definitions of washing machines, and waited for her to lose her temper so they could drag her back to this noticeboard and say, "I told you so."

tl;dr: Is Lightbreather perfect? No. She takes the bait. She gets angry. She argues fiercely. But she does so because she is fighting a entrenched, coordinated faction that uses "polite" wikilawyering to guard their turf. If you ban Lightbreather, the noticeboards will indeed get quieter. But it will be the quiet of a graveyard. It will be the silence of an encyclopedia that gave up its pursuit of neutrality because fighting a special interest group was simply too exhausting.

Do not punish the fire alarm because the ringing hurts your ears. Put out the fire.

Oppose the ban. Regards, SilentHalo (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

"Finally, we must address the chilling admission by user Anastrophe"

"Anastrophe openly admitted in this thread that he lobbied for her unbanning just to see if she would break her promise not to edit gun articles."

"This is the behavior of a hunter waiting in a duck blind."

These claims are, to put it bluntly as I am wont to do, unmitigated horseshit. You clearly did not even read my commentary when I tendered the vote in favor of unbanning. I made no "admission" that my purpose in voting for the unban was some sort of trap; that's an unvarnished lie. LB did a splendid job of productively editing the encyclopedia for years while under restraint after the unban. Nobody baited her into discussion on gun-related articles after the restraints were removed. She did that all by herself.

Intolerable slander and innuendo. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I moved these here, as they were really confusing in the previous location (and out of chronological order. Feel free to revert if I wasn't meant to do that. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, @SilentHalo, would you please unbold all but one of your bold "oppose" statements? Generally bold "Supports" or "Opposes" are used to gage how many different editors have weighed in on each side of an issue, having two like you do is quite confusing and breaks from the convention, it looks like "double-voting" (not that we're supposed to vote). Samuelshraga (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. SilentHalo (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support the pattern here is not a single incident, but a documented recurrence and multiple sanctions. TBAN was rescinded in November 2025, and within a few months she is back to similar behavior: reverting things unilaterally, battleground conduct, accusing others, etc., even after assuring that she has learned the lessons from previous bans Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Based on the multiple examples of repeated behavior (ie WP:BATTLE, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:ICANTHEARYOU) of this editor I support this TBAN proposal. Even though Lightbreather has demonstrated the ability to make some positive edits on articles with subjects outside of guns without incident, she seems incapable of neutral editing on firearms subjects. Assertions that the proposal is motivated by bias, factionalism, or an effort to remove an "inconvenient" editor should not be made without compelling evidence. ~2026-40636-10 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by subject editor

I'm creating this subsection per WP:CBAN. Since much of the "evidence" (with few actual diffs) against me involves looking at my past, I am offering a glimpse into Springee's and Anastrophe's past, since they were both named in TBUA's opening paragraph. (My response to recent accusations and some of my observations about recent disputes are scattered about in the previous section.)

Lightbreather is the one with an extensive history of extremely disruptive conduct and battleground behavior in this topic area... ~ CoffeeCrumbs

And extensive only in this topic area, whereas Springee and Anastrophe have been warned and or sanctioned in numerous topic areas.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't add just "gun control" content. I created the articles for Robert J. Cottrol, a gun-rights scholar, and Aaron S. Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Both neutral and unchallenged by pro-gun editors. Also, I don't just edit gun-related articles. Here, less than one year ago, I fixed Iljhgtn's merge hijinx about Trump's border wall - certainly a topic easily battled over - with ZERO problems. Talk page:

I've created these biographies: P. B. Young and Amy Kelly. Here is my editing history from 22 Sep. 2022 through 1 Nov. 2025, and never once warned or taken to a noticeboard. So is the problem we're discussing here me? Or exclusively me?

Examples of Springee's editing history

Springee Talk page warnings (Many instances where Springee simply deletes warnings rather than archive them.)

• Feb. 2015 "Canvassing Warning" Subject: politics.
• July 2022 "Your insinuation that this is akin to 'needling' and 'grave dancing' represents yet another WP:AGF fail and WP:ASPERSION on your part..."
• Oct. 2022 "Your hounding is becoming disruptive. Please stop it before further action is taken." Subject: BLP.
• Jan. 2023 "Your initial wholesale undo of my contribution without explanation is not 'acting in good faith' as a Wikipedia editor." Subject: BLP.
• Feb. 2023 "Contentious topic alert", which he dismissed because "it's already covered by my BLP and AP2 awareness tags at the top of the page."
• April 2023 "...having participated actively in the RfC, you know very well that the change was already discussed. Restoring language that was a consensus option there (and has since been modified without consensus, somehow slipping through) does not require further discussion. Please self-revert."
• June 2023 "Post truth politics" Possible canvassing? Also, Thebiguglyalien, who started this ANI against me (Lightbreather), seems to be tag-teaming with Springee against DN (click link [3]).
• Aug. 2023 "If you ask another editor one more time to provide evidence to support a reliable source's claim, I will report you to ANI. You are being disruptive. Stop."
• Aug. 2023 "Notice of edit warring..."
• Oct. 2025 "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed" Indefinitely banned from user-conduct enforcement noticeboards and admonished for their conduct in transgender topics, broadly construed.
• Nov. 2025 "Borderline topic-ban violation at NPOVN"
• "June 2026 edit warring warning"

Springee Assorted accusations, actions, and warnings at noticeboards

• AN3 Nov. 2015 User:Scoobydunk reported by User:Springee - Edit warring. Springee's report boomeranged and he was SANCTIONED.
• ARE Feb. 2019: Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910 Deleting criminal use from Glock, with eight diffs.

Comment by user submitting request mirrors what has been happening at "Magazine (firearms)" and related articles:

"Taken together in the context of the overall discussion, these comments represent a pattern of obstruction to the consensus-building process by refusing to work toward a compromise, refusing to accept that consensus may change and setting ever-higher bars for inclusion of criminal use content." WARNED.

• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation that Springee was warring against consensus.
• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation that "[Springee, Atsme, etc.] decided they're gonna stonewall this consensus by making novel (mis)interpretations of policy or derailing discussion."
• AN Aug. 2020 Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion? Accusation of edit warring, with diffs.
• ARE Sep. 2020 Springee "User has been repeatedly edit warring on [three] pages subject to discretionary sanctions. Generally these are three reverts in a matter of hours." Result: SELF-IMPOSED 1RR.
• ARE April 2021 Springee Violations: Pushing unreliable sources, rejecting reliable sources; Result: No action, but "be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources."
• ARE March 2023 Springee List of eight violations, with diffs. Result: No action but warned "Don't flood a talk page with comments and regulate your tone."

Comment by editor filing complaint mirrors what has been happening at "Magazine (firearms)" and related articles:

"I realize that all sources are open for discussion and nothing is universally reliable or unreliable, but constantly challenging reliable sources while pushing unreliable ones is a form of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Springee's rationale for assessing sources often does not seem to be based on any discernable guideline, for example they argued that an opinion in The Intercept is unreliable because "the person offering the opinion/commentary is just a reporter, not some sort of expert." This is becoming a huge time sink as editors are expected to explain basic sourcing practices over and over, and content is kept out of articles per NOCONSENSUS when Springee cannot be convinced, leading to whitewashing and NPOV concerns. This is not conducive to collaborative editing in a contentious topic area."

• AN Nov. 2025 Reopen RfC at RSN that was closed early Admonished for unilaterally re-opening an RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 03:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Examples of Anastrophe's editing history

Anastrophe Talk page warnings

• March 2007 Fellow editor commented on Anastrophe's "tone, infliction and manner of writing"
• July 2007 Anastrophe effectively asks editors to stay off his lawn.
• Aug. 2007 3RR warning Topic: Climate change.
• Oct. 2007 Blocked for edit warring. Topic: Sports.
• Jan. 2008 3RR warning Topic: Health care.
• Jan. 2008 Warned to not delete another person's talk page post. He had deleted the post twice.
• March 2009 Warned to not delete another person's talk page post. The deletion:
• 2013 His 2013 talk page was almost exclusively my pleas to be civil, to stop calling me a "single-purpose advocacy", WP:PA (three times) and WP:WAR.

• 2014 His talk page has a post from me asking him to AGF and practice WP:TPYES with DN, who was a newbie at the time and whom I was unofficially mentoring on how WP works. (Scan DN's archive and note that my advice to them is not political').
• Feb. 2020 Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Topic: Military operations.
• Jan. 2024 Warned of edit warring. Topic: Films.

Anastrophe Assorted accusations, actions, and warnings at noticeboards

• ANI Aug. 2013 Accused (along with North8000 and two others) of multiple-editor OWNERSHIP (After being beat up by a group of editors at a talk page, I started an ANI - not knowing about the "boomerang". I'd been actively editing about a month-and-a-half at this point and foolishly sought dispute resolution, which I found on the policy page. Some months later, Anastrophe apologized for his behavior and the few edits I was trying to make were accepted.)
• ANI April 2014 Opened an ANI about User:Viriditas Warned at least twice during discussion about his own behavior.
• AN3 Feb. 2020 User:Vnkd reported by User:Anastrophe - Edit warring; BOTH BLOCKED.

Comments by others about "Comments by subject editor"

Admins - As can be seen on the talk pages and the above discussion, this isn't just a debate against Springree, but quite a few other editors. Yet this myriad of diffs, going back to 2015 (and largely irrelevant to this actual discussion) is solely focused on Springree. Given that Springee can't defend themselves, which Lightbreather even references above, how can this not be seen as baiting and/or gaming? PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

My reading of WP:BANEX is that it may allow Springree to defend themselves here. Although if I were Springree, I would clarify that with admins first. TarnishedPath^talk 02:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Springee did check with an admin (SFR if memory serves) and was advised not to comment here. It's on SFR's talk page. I doubt they will be commenting unless an Admin clarifies the position. Lightbreather did rather belatedly (today) mention on SFR's talk that they consider Springee to be an "involved participant," but clarification is likely in order. Intothatdarkness 17:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Springee should comment here if he wants to, and I alluded to that in a previous comment. Also, I will be presenting evidence about Anastrophe too. Probably tomorrow. The reason I'm including older and new stuff is because quite a few people here have made an issue of my past. The reason Springee and Anastrophe is because Thebiguglyalien mentioned them right off the bat, but in such a way as to suggest I am responsible for how they behaved. Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I believe CBAN allows me to have my own section so my comments and replies don't get lost in the crowd. Would you and TarnishedPath kindly move your posts outside this section, please? Lightbreather (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, CBAN says that sections may be organised into sections by template to allow the subject editor to post a response, not that they must be given a dedicated section. That's my read, although if you want to insert a section heading above PositivelyUncertain's comment separating these comments into a section, I'm not going to complain. TarnishedPath^talk 02:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain either. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "allows me" rather than "entitles me". I don't think it's asking a lot and I think anyone else going through something like this would feel the same. Lightbreather (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

While CBAN does mention subjects can have a subsection for their statement, it does not say indicate that subsection is solely for their use and cannot be replied to. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I think it defeats the purpose. Lightbreather (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If one analyzes this massive whataboutism construction, there's nothing substantivre in there about editor conduct. Springee is is exempular editor yet this massive creative off-topic construction tries to give an impression otherwise. IMO this is illustrative of what this report is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• 'Support' - I have been observing Lightbreather on and off wiki for some time now ever since my participation in certain AfDs initiated against their articles and their subsequent forceful and consensus-defeating reopening. Considering their disposition while they edit in the gun control area and their countenance towards editors who disagree with them, I have no faith in their ability to contribute constructively here, at the best case, at least in this subject. Their repeated promises to keep away from this subject followed by their WP:POINTY and uncivil inability to do so puts me in this unfortunate position of having to support a reinstatement of their T-Ban. I'm simply baffled by the number of noticeboards involved and the animus conflicts they find themselves amidst when they invariably wander back to this subject. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to move this up underneath the other votes; this is a separate commentary section. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

AI AfC drafts

Vusumuzi Tshabangu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI) has created a large amount of sports-related drafts (over a dozen in the past hour). Most of the references provided just lead to the main page of whatever website they source rather than the title it claims to lead to, while the writing is extremely AI-like ("He established himself as an indispensable defensive pillar and primary lineout option under the national coaching staff.", from Draft:Godfrey Muzanargwo, or "he is widely regarded as a teenage sensation noted for his blistering speed, exceptional playmaking vision, and sharp eye for the try-line.", from Draft:Tyrone Gombe. I have warned them multiple times however it appears they are too busy mass-submitting slop drafts and need to be made to stop. Lynch44 17:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I have partially blocked them from page creation and hope they will participate here. I leave G15 or other actions to someone with more time this evening. Star Mississippi 01:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Noting that they seem to be a SPA, and have refused to communicate. Beta Beta Beta - talk 22:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, violations of WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Their account remains inactive since the partial block. Beta Beta Beta - talk 20:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yep, sourcing issues and overly PROMO content in multiple articles smells like a paid editor. Ignoring the warnings and continuing doing the same thing isn't a good sign either. I think that the partial block was a reasonable preventative measure, and I hope that they wont continue creating similar drafts without communicating. ScottyNolan (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to add as well even if this wasn't AI that large number of flowery and puffery words don't make his work submissible in any manner. As others have said above hopefully they communicate. Some kind of block seems like the right approach here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AadamentAardvark (talk • contribs) 13:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Abusive use of WP:TPE rights

Gonnym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gonnym has long been a constructive member of this community but unfortunately has taken a turn in the last few weeks that I feel requires admin intervention.

They have created a new template (Template:Front-facing other) which they have en-masse added to dozens and dozens of templates. When this addition was objected to (by me), with this edit and this discussion started (again by me), Gonnym's response was to rage quit a project we had been collaborating on and vandalize my userpage where we were tracking the project with this edit.

In addition, they have violated both WP:BOLD AND WP:TPEBOLD by continuing to force through their new code on a template that they feel they WP:OWN. They inserted their new template here. I objected in the above discussion thread and on their talk page, reverted the edit here. After a multi-day rage quit wikibreak, their second and third edit back were to revert myself and Jonesey95 who have objected to the use of this template (Special:Diff/1363954683 & Special:Diff/1363581158/1363954623).

I will also note that my MULTIPLE attempts to WP:ENGAGE with Gonnym regarding this issue (as well as those by other users) have been met with either deletion of our comments (Special:Diff/1363432517/1363954758) or outright contempt that anyone dare object to their ideas. Wikipedia, as we all know, is based on WP:CONSENSUS. There is no problem introducing new code, but when MULTIPLE people have objected to your idea in MULTIPLE different locations, and yet you continue to push through your ideas and force things to be done your way, that is highly disruptive and an abuse of WP:TPE rights. The fact that Gonnym continues to refuse to engage on the issue and is simply reverting editors saying "it works as it is intented to" (clear translation: "it works the way that I want it to") is also of major concern.

I request an admin review of Gonnym's actions. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Note, I will be offline most of the day but will gladly respond to any questions when I return. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment: For an example of disruptive editing, see this undiscussed change to Template:Infobox television episode, which was reverted, and then which Gonnym reinstated without discussion. The same editing behavior is evident at Template:Infobox television crossover episode. Edit warring is one thing, but edit warring in template space is at a different level. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, this same editor said, after repeatedly reverting another editor, Actually per WP:BRD, it's not on me to start a discussion, it's on the person being reverted. It appears that they want to have it both ways. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

sorry for adding my 2 cents, but I feel this looks like more of a mental health crash than anything else, still deserves a block though MrDenjiLover 🪚 (talk / edits) (Non-binary) 23:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to diagnose anyone, but I can say that this editor has (until the last few days) been a reasonable and hard-working colleague for many years. I have worked with them for over five years on template-space maintenance. We have sometimes had differences of opinion, which is normal, but this disruptive behavior is unusual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it is also worth noting that when I notified Gonnym of the ANI that I opened here (as is required), they reverted my edit with an edit summary saying already asked you 3 times to stop posting here. First off, that is not true. They have deleted my comments on their talk page after many cordial interactions, but have NEVER asked me not to post on their talk page, and certainly have not done so 3 times. What is more, I am required by policy to notify a user when I file an ANI against them, so to complain about that (and then to revert Danners430's explanation as Gonnym did here) just further shows that Gonnym is no longer interested in working with others. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Coupled with what Jonesey95 said above, this sounds like a WP:COMPROMISED account to me, and I'm pretty sure the standard procedure for those is to block the compromised account indefinitely, but I forgot if talk page access is typically also revoked as well.

(In addition, according to WP:TPE#Have a strong password, compromised template editors apparently also get their rights revoked, which doesn't seem very important if the account is blocked from every page, but I digress.) - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 01:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I've never revoked this right for someone before, and thus I'm concerned about immediately moving to it now. That said, I think that item #1 of Wikipedia:Template_editor#Criteria_for_revocation has been demonstrated. Further, Gonnym is demonstrating an unwillingness to engage on this thread despite their awareness and seriousness of it. Further, WP:TPE says "Expect to be held accountable for all changes you make. Be receptive to any concerns or complaints that others raise.". Their refusal to respond is, in my opinion, sufficient grounds for revocation of the template editor right. As to the account being compromised, I'd like to see more evidence of this. This is a very long time contributor, and thus a possible target. But, we need more evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Gonnym should be given a chance to continue discussing the matter in Template_talk:Infobox_sportsperson#Explosion_of_unknown_parameters. If Zackmann08 has upset him in some way, Gonnym should explain his perspective so that the community can understand better what is going on and to know what to expect. Gonnym should alternatively be given the option of declaring that he has dropped the issue and will not repeat the disputed edits. I suggest not doing anything rash here.—Alalch E. 15:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  They haven't edited since this ANI was opened, so I doubt any administrator will take any action until they return, unless they get ANI flu. Threads only get archived once every two days, so if an editor is on a wikibreak (which after all can be advisable if someone is under stress with a dispute) just keep the thread open by posting every day or two. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will just note that they HAVE edited since the ANI was opened. Not much, but they have in fact edited since they were notified of the ANI. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: I completely agree. What is particularly concern is the way that Gonnym proceeded to edit war via their TPE rights, reverted the ANI notice on their talk page and called it WP:HOUNDING. Not attempt to address the issues here thus far.

  I want to be clear, as I said in this post on Gonnym's talk page, I am 100% open to a resolution to this and to continuing to work with Gonnym. The fact that they simply reverted my attempts to communicate with them AND continue to revert both my and Jonesey95's edits is what is so concerning. I genuinely hope that Gonnym will come back and discuss the issues. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Still hoping for an eventual response by Gonnym. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Gonnym has explicitly said "don't ping me", told you to stop posting on their talk page and accused you of hounding. No matter who is in the right about the stupid template dispute, you should not be badgering them with constant pings. You know they are aware of the discussion, so you have absolutely no reason to keep pinging them other than to annoy them. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 23:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @REAL MOUSE IRL: none of what you have said is accurate. This is an ANI which requires a response from involved parties. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  REAL MOUSE IRL is spot on and completely accurate. You are right in that the ANI thread requires a response from involved parties, and you know Gonnym is aware of this thread. You have also been asked to stop pinging the editor, and yet you continue to do so. Your ping three replies above is not necessary and provides nothing. If an administrator requires more activity and response from Gonnym, they will state so. -- Alex _talk 06:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No ping bump to keep thread from being archived until Gonnym responds. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If they've retired/quit/run away then you're going to be bumping this forever. Just unarchive it if/when they come back. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll let this die out. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Kaspar-trout continued LLM use

Kaspar-trout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Kaspar-trout was warned about NOLLM on 26 April 2026, and responded that they may have used an AI tool to help verify my grammar and syntex for certain sentences, as well as a neutrality checker. On 18 May they said that since that warning their edits were entirely researched, written, and reviewed by me.

They were then challenged by multiple editors at AINB (WP:AINB § User:Kaspar-trout) on AISIGNS and source/text issues in multiple articles and edits including . (See AINB thread for additional examples.) They defended a quote sourced to FanNation by pointing out that it was present in a difference source, ESPN (that is, they defended misattributing the quote) and added this (partially corrected by them in ).

I believe this comment indicates the editor's level of English (which, to be clear, I am not criticizing). However, shortly afterwards Butterscotch Beluga and I were pointing out page number discrepancies and got this response: . This shows a very different register of English and is also non-responsive in a way typical of LLM.

The editor's response to source/text issues seems to have been to latch on to my use of the term "rapid-fire" and redirect constantly onto talking about speed. There has been little engagement with the need to have claims match their sources. Many responses continued to sound LLM generated.

The problem is continuing. In a 12 July mainspace edit to W. C. Heinz they wrote: Elmore Leonard said that he studied Heinz’s magazine profiles and learned from his use of dialogue. The only mention of Elmore Leonard in the source is Elmore Leonard sent Heinz a fan letter, "the only letter I've ever written to another writer," praising the book's honesty and clarity. ("The book" refers to a novel written by Heinz.) This appears to be an LLM hallucination. Several other statements in the edit are also mismatched to sources.

The editor's most recent response is . I am not confident this will help, partly because this response itself appears to be LLM (note boldfacing, found only in their LLM-like responses and not the more human-like ones). Also the potential issue with Grammarly had been pointed out days earlier and did not prevent the 12 July edit.

I feel we have extended as much good faith as we can, but LLM edits are ongoing and I do not believe an LLM-written promise to improve is credible. I request a block to prevent further damage. M kuhner (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC))

Support indef, i pointed out earlier that they were previously warned of grammarly (with a heap of good faith) and that they were continuing to use a LLM while editing, if this isn't a "chronic, intractable behavioral (problem)", i don't know what else would be one ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Good morning, everyone. Just to be clear, am I expected to respond on this new thread, or is it only for administrators?

Honestly, I'm not sure what to add. On one side, some users are concerned about wording that “appears” too close to the original source, even when it is only a couple of words in a sentence; on the other, there are those who need to find the information as closely reflected as possible in the inline source. I try to find a solution somewhere in the middle. Sometimes the different elements of a sentence are sourced through multiple citations supporting a paragraph. Sometimes rewording for copyright concerns leads to phrasing that is different in detail but not in meaning.

I may also have latched onto the phrase “rapid-fire,” given the general tone of the messages I have received. I have tried to acknowledge and thank people whenever the tone felt more polite. This particular phrase triggered me because I read it as another attempt to establish my misconduct in a different way. I know everyone is just trying to be efficient and procedural.

Boldfacing? Honestly, I have barely used it because I never really figured out the formatting tools here. I see people changing colors, fonts, and all sorts of things, but I have not really tried to learn any of that. On the few occasions when I used bold, it was just for emphasis, to make the different points easier to scan quickly. Now I do not even know what tone to adopt anymore: being too polite would be read as LLM-like, and being too understanding and collaborative would be as well, even though that is what I have tried to be until now.

To be clear, I'm not arguing with you, but what am I supposed to say when you declare that “many responses continued to sound LLM-generated”? Or when someone refers to a “chronic, intractable behavioral problem”? Or even simply writes “Kaspar-trout continued LLM use”? Who can be so assertive?

I'm perfectly fine with the community and its administrators raising questions, examining the situation, and eventually deciding whether any action needs to be taken. But I do not think anyone should simply open a thread and frame its title as though the conclusion has already been established. Kaspar-trout (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome to respond here: it's not just for administrators.

M kuhner (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do you use curly quotes in some comments and straight ones in others (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence)? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Kowal2701, I'm not sure. Is it possible that it might be caused by the fact that I use different computers? (it's a genuine question) My personal one has been purchased in Canada and has a north american keybord, while the other one is european with a different set of keys with all sorts of accents. Sometimes this requires me to use shortcuts to find some specific signs or symbols. I'm just guessing, as I said it's a real question. Thanks Kaspar-trout (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 I just ran a test and it seems to depend on where I write the text (often I prepare my text on a word processor). When I type directly into Wikipedia, the quotation marks remain straight. When I type in Google Docs or another text editor they are automatically converted into typographic, or curly, quotation marks, and WP preserves them when I paste the text. I can't test the keybord hypothesis right now but will do. Kaspar-trout (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner, Hi, I was reading our thread here again and I noticed that I didn't answer your concern about what you mistaken for an LLM hallucination (which proves me that perhaps you read a bit too fast the sources I cited). The second source ( https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-feb-28-me-heinz28-story.html ) from the LA times reports this exact sentence:

For Leonard, it became a model. “I was studying writing closely in the ‘50s, and I learned a lot from Heinz,” Leonard recently told The Times. He followed Heinz’s magazine profiles. “Heinz got so much dialogue into his writing. He could get sports guys to talk, and he’d get their attitude right.” - This is what I cited (and i actually might have another issue here because my text is too close to the original, so I might need to change it).

Not trying to argue with you, but this all story is not making me feel great so, for reminder, this is what you wrote: The problem is continuing. In a 12 July mainspace edit to W. C. Heinz [114] they wrote: Elmore Leonard said that he studied Heinz’s magazine profiles and learned from his use of dialogue. The only mention of Elmore Leonard in the source is Elmore Leonard sent Heinz a fan letter, "the only letter I've ever written to another writer," praising the book's honesty and clarity. ("The book" refers to a novel written by Heinz.) This appears to be an LLM hallucination. Several other statements in the edit are also mismatched to sources.

As you can see, I'm really considering all of your concerns and trying my best to answer, fix or understand the issue. I hope this reassure you. Kaspar-trout (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Recent LLM has a strong tendency to give a real quote but attribute it to the wrong source. In this case, the edit that I linked above attributed this quote to . It is not in that source. It is in the LA times, but you are not allowed to take a quote or claim from one source and falsely attribute it to a different source.

(The current version of the article has different sourcing. I am working with the original edit, linked above.)

We went through this exact discussion, for a different misattributed claim, on AINB. Imagine what happens if you attribute a quote or claim made by A to B instead, and B disagrees strongly and would never have said that. This could cause serious trouble.

I believe that very recent (2026) LLMs find sources first, then shred them up, remix them, and write the text. This has reduced the rate of complete untruths, but it has two serious problems. One is attributing quotes to the wrong source; the other is too-close paraphrase, because the number of sources being shredded is low, so it's easy for a large chunk from one source to be exactly reproduced.

LLM text is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please don't just try to fix the symptoms. M kuhner (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that isn't what happened.I attributed 2 sources to the paragraph and one the the 2 sources (the LA times is cited right after SI) was for that particulmar purpose. Sometimes I insert more than one source for giving more credibility to a claim, or because A+B gives a better foundation for the entire paragraph (and also what follows). "It is in the LA times, but you are not allowed to take a quote or claim from one source and falsely attribute it to a different source." What do you mean by that? I am not falsely attributing anything here (As i said I inserted 2 sources instead of one). These 2 sources don't really report the same information but they don't necesserily disagree, they report something different. Part of the information (the letter) is tha same, but then LAtimes goes further in detailing Leonard's relation or appretiacion for Heinz's work. You seem to latch onto the Sport Illustrated source (which I used to support the firts part of the sentence, the one about David Halberstam. this is why SI is cited) + I used the LA times for supporting the last part of my phrase, the one about Elmore Leonard (as explained earlier).

I genuinely don't understand your message here. It doesn't seem right to me. I know i'm the one under scrutiny, that's ok, but you can't even aknowledge that you made a mistake. I don't understand what is that you call false attribution when I have 2 inline sources (that I sourced and read) cited at the end of a paragraph.

Now, since you just gave me a quite disrespectful pseudo math lesson, maybe I should do the same to make myself clear.

SI/D. Halberstam + LAT/Elmore Leonard = my paragraph and its 2 sources attributed to a 1/2 sentence each. (deliberate boldface)

"LLM text is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please don't just try to fix the symptoms." Now tell me you're not getting a little too personal... come on. Look, I know I am starting to sound upset here (and I'm sorry for that) but afterall this is a conversation about LLM vs Human, and being upset is part of the natural option and I decided to control it but not to hide it to you anymore.

Maybe (again) there's something not quite right in the way I cite (the use of multiple sources for reconstructing an idea that is compressed in a short paragraph for instance). In that case i'd like to learn more about it and understand the praxis. Seriously. Kaspar-trout (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am basing my statements on two diffs: and . In the first one, I point out that a source does not support what you cited it for, and you respond that the information is present, but is in a different source. In the second one, you insert the Elmore Leonard quote with an inline citation, immediately after it, to a source in which it does not appear.

The current version of the article does not look like that. If we were debating human mistakes, the fact that you have fixed it (thank you!) would be the end of the matter. But we know that 2026 LLM has a high rate of giving near-exact quotes attached to the wrong source, and that is what I believe happened in both these cases.

Anyone can check the diffs and reach their own conclusion. M kuhner (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes anyone can check. And that's good. I still don't understand. It's one compound sentence with a comma in the middle and two subjects. I initially put the 2 sources after the period (now fixed thanks to you) because i thought the 2 sources would support the entirety of my claim (which they do). I don't see the problem since the information is contained in the 2 sources 1 for the first half, 1 for the second. You are very much engaged in policing the use of LLM, not just with me but more broadly and I aprpeciate the amount of work that you are taking in, but at the same time I think you are very assertive with me again with your 2026 LLM. And you I know you are wrong on this. Sorry. Kaspar-trout (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that putting to complementary sources at the end of a phrase instead of separating them within it, is "a human mistake", I thought I was doing the right thing and perhaps I was wrong on that. Kaspar-trout (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not talking about the current version of the article, which has both sources at the end of the line. I am talking about the diff I gave in my response, which is what the article looked like at the moment you edited it. In that diff, there is an in-line citation right after the Leonard quote, and the quote is not supported by the citation. You did not "initially put the 2 sources after the period," as you will see if you examine the diff.

This diff is why I went to ANI, because we had asked you to deal with the problem, and this July 12 edit suggested you were not. M kuhner (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Me neither. i'm talking about the version you questioned which has the 2 citations back to back for the reasons i already explained. I sourced the information, read it, extract the supporting parts for my edit and create that compound sentence instead of creating two different short ones.

What do you mean by this: "and this July 12 edit suggested you were not"?

Why don't you tell me why you never mentioned the LA times source instead (maybe you came to your conclusion too quickly? Is that possible?) You are rightfully investigating my work and I already said many times that I accept it and I comply to it, no problem. But It seems to me that you're not willing to accept your mistakes.

I'm leaving this to other contributors to question and to verify, our conversation it's taking a bad turn (i'm talking about me ok?) and we need a more constructive approach. Thank you @M kuhner Kaspar-trout (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

note: the user is still continuing to add LLM-generated content (per Gurkubondinn) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Gurkubondinn decided that the work i've done on the Hakoach bedzin is "just another LLM version of the same text" without any further detail. I decided not to answer not because I dismissed them, but because I felt like there wasn't much to answer to it. This was not "another LLM-generated version of the same text." (and it wasn't an LLM generated text in the first instance).

Given the level of scrutiny my work is already under, I would have had no reason to submit LLM generated text. Particularly in a revision of an article that is up for deletion. After the deletion nomination, I reviewed the sources, translated material when necessary, reworked the wording and replaced citations according to my previous mistakes. The revision is the result of my own research and my editorial work.

I accept that the community may decide to delete the nominated material. I would simply ask that Gurkubondinn's assessment that this was LLM generated not be treated as evidence in relation to my pending block, since that assessment (as the previous ones) is incorrect. Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38678-64 have you read the article? Could you please identify the specific passages that led you to that conclusion and explain the basis for it? Because when you concisely write that "the user is still continuing to add LLM-generated content", it suggests that you have identified clear evidence in the article itself. I would appreciate it if you could make that evidence explicit to me, so that I can understand what you are referring to and respond to it. Thank you Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

instead of asking these questions, maybe say what you want to say ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What I want to say is that the statement that I am "still continuing to add LLM-generated content" is incorrect. What makes you think I have something else to say? I think I've said everything plainly and also honestly without concealing information or even my thoughts. Kaspar-trout (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

maybe, but you've been badgering us all for 2 months at AINB, repeatedly bludgeoning, sealioning, civil point of view pushing so your LLM edits can continue to spill, like someone dumping chemical waste into a river, and yet, now you continue, still lying, still saying that you're not using LLM even after multiple editors have told you that this is unacceptable. I do not, in fact, need to "identify the specific passages" because we're not in a courtroom ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

wow. ok. this is some talking. Look, I asked you a question because I wanted to know what in your opinion looks like LLM-generated text. I don't think you even read that article and since we're not in not a courtroom I don't need to justify this statement, and stop treating me as if we were. I have answered to anyone who asked me about specific passages. I am not going to respond to the personal comparisons or continue an adversarial exchange on this platform. I do not need someone dumping his chemical frustration (yes yours) on me the way you just did. This is going too far and your response is unacceptable. Kaspar-trout (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a consistent pattern of citing source A for things that are in source B. Some examples:

Your edit linked above says, Hakoach Będzin remained active until the destruction and deportation of Będzin's Jewish community during the Holocaust, between August 1942 and June 1943. This is sourced to . The only mention of "Hakoach" in that source is the following: On this day the Jews of Bedzin were ordered to gather at two separate locations in the city - the 'Hakoach' sports field on Kosciuszko Street and the 'Sarmacja' sports field on Malobadz. The statement about remaining active is in a different source.

Your edit says ordered to assemble at the two football pitches in the city : the Hakoach sports field on Kościuszko Street, and the Sarmacja sports field on Małobądz. This is sourced to but that source does not mention either street name, nor Sarmacja; your text is instead a close paraphrase of .

Additionally, there is a problem with source 10. It says this material is on pp. 320-322. It is present, on p. 322 only (the other two pages are translations of different topics). But this is a translation from Pinkes Bendin (A Memorial to the Jewish Community of Bendin), Editors: A. Sh. Stein, Tel Aviv, Association of Former Residents of Bedzin in Israel, 1959 (H, Y, 431 pages) according to the Table of Contents. Just sourcing this to the web site is not good: those people deserve credit for their work.

This is what I was able to find working only with the English language sources. M kuhner (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @M kuhner. I think we have an A-B sourcing misunderstanding between us. I said it many times that I'm willing to understand what's wrong with it. I'm sorry but I do not understand, especially now because since our last exchange I've been trying to use these sources in a way that seemed to me more in line with your concerns.

The street names are in the source "13" the next one, which is only a few words after. The n° "12" I think was meant to support the general event and specifically the date. I wanted to put them together after the second period and I separated them trying to do something right (which now I doubt)

Yes Pinkes Bendin is the book scanned and online on a different website that I found but didn't use because the whole book isn't about the subject. My source comes specifically from an archive published in Pinkes Bendin, that is available separately as my source shows. Originally the archive wasn't written for the book (I suppose) so I kept it separate. Kaspar-trout (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If you say "It was pink and green [1], and square and pointy [2]"--then the colors have to be in [1] and the shapes have to be in [2].

I understand that you're saying all of these source/text mismatches were human errors. I can't prove this is false. But this exact type of error is extremely common in LLM generated text, and it's been consistently happening in multiple articles of yours. In any case, having had this error pointed out to you repeatedly, you're still doing it. Why is that?

On your specific point about street names: you wrote On August 12, 1942, the Jews of Będzin were ordered to assemble at the two football pitches in the city : the Hakoach sports field on Kościuszko Street, and the Sarmacja sports field on Małobądz.[12]. This is not in [12]. It is, as you say, in [13] and is too closely paraphrased: [13] says On August 12, 1942, the Jews of Będzin were ordered to gather at two separate points in the city—the “Hakoach” sports field on Kościuszko Street and the “Sarmacja” sports field on Małobądz. So you took the almost exact words from 13 and put them in the mouth of 12. There is a lot of this too-close paraphrase throughout the article. This is also extremely common with LLM generated text.

I don't think I understand your comments about Pinkes Bendin. If you click on the table of contents on the page you link to, it leads to a page that states clearly that these are translations from the book, and gives the book's name, date, editors, and the author's pen name. Your citation should say what book this is from, so that the author and editors get proper credit. It would also be good to give the title of the article (within the book) that you are actually using, and the correct page number for that article.

I wish I could believe you that you are not using LLM. But there are so many typical LLM errors, and they keep happening. (There are also AISIGNS in the text, but I personally am more concerned with the sourcing errors.) M kuhner (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking another example, the original version of The Sweet Science (book), I don't think the whole thing is AI-generated, but parts of it seem to have AI involvement beyond "grammar and syntax," and those parts have problems typical of AI editing/sourcing:

• This context is reflected in The Sweet Science, which often contrasts the atmosphere of live attendance at arenas and gyms with the changing experience of boxing as a broadcast spectacle. - You can't say the book "often" does something when you cite only one essay in the book: consistent with WP:AIWEASEL. Also, you can't cite the book itself as a source for some "context" being "reflected" as that is WP:SYNTH, unless the book itself makes the exact connection.
• Commentators have emphasized Liebling’s attention to the human and social world of boxing. - AIWEASEL again, a more textbook example: only one commentator is mentioned or cited. (also note presence of WP:SUPERFICIAL/WP:AIVOCAB, although for once the source actually does seem to emphasize these things, rather than just mentioning them. Broken clocks, etc.)
• Rather than treating the sport only as a sequence of contests, The Sweet Science portrays fighters, trainers, managers, journalists, and spectators as individual characters shaped by ambition, disappointment, memory, and professional routine. - Unattributed opinion, but more importantly, "shaped by ambition, disappointment, memory, and professional routine." does not seem to be claimed by the source; the sentence this seems to be referring to, "Every person encountered in his wonderful book–whether fighter, trainer, manager, fellow journalist or boxing enthusiast–is always a true individual carrying hopes and frustrations, a past and a present, a mind and a character," only corroborates the "individual characters" and professions. ("shaped by" also common WP:AIVOCAB pattern, and one persisting into 2026)
• A contemporary review in Kirkus Reviews described the book as a collection of Liebling's New Yorker articles on boxing from June 1951 to September 1955, calling it "excellent reading and not only for the buffs" - Typical example of WP:AIATTR, specifically the non-sequitur mention of the fact that the review contains generic uncontroversial facts. Also, the review is here, but the text is instead cited for some reason to an audiobook library that only contains a soundbite of the review, without the 1951-1955 part.
• The book was also included in the Modern Library list of the 100 best nonfiction books. - I actually don't think this is AI, since it's a little too vague for that; nevertheless, the list is neither cited nor seems to be mentioned in any of the sources that are.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

as far as AI being "a neutrality checker," an illustrative example is this edit to Wadi Gaza. Obviously the whole thing is not AI-generated since there's still a typo in the text. Again, the citations are messed up -- the "four plants in 2022" bit comes from the second source, not the first one. But more importantly, treated Gaza’s wastewater crisis as a cross-border environmental and public-health issue, leading Israel to bring modern wastewater treatment to Gaza manages to be subtly promotional both of EcoPeace (their efforts led to this big win!) and of Israel (the government brought modern technology to the people!) Of note here is that the source for the 4-plants thing also mentions that those plants were later severely damaged in the war, and that Israel cut power to two plants in 2025 (unclear whether that means the same ones, or for that matter which of the plants were in Wadi Gaza at all); those parts didn't make it into the article. I don't know whether this was imposed by the LLM or present in the original text, but if you're using AI tools as a "neutrality checker," it isn't working. Honestly, using AI at all on articles about Israel/Palestine is a disaster waiting to happen. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

several of their comments seem to lightly dance between AIASSURE (done repeatedly at the AINB thread) ORCC, and CAAOS, which means that even in this thread, they're probably using some kind of LLM-assist? ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User Laddyfisher

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

---

Laddyfisher (talk · contribs) was unblocked recently but quickly reverted to old behavior. Deletes all user talk page messages, often with aggressive edit summaries (Special:Diff/1364043244, Special:Diff/1363503983). The user deleted a talk page message about a misapplied policy with the edit summary "Not worth a discussion" (Special:Diff/1363475757) and then kept misapplying the policy (Special:Diff/1364016159). Keeps violating WP: FILMOGRAPHY despite being warned before (Special:Diff/1346114127). (Not a blockworthy offense by itself, but given the user's history...) The user should be indeffed again, and we should make sure that admins know about the previous block, unblock and disruptive behavior, so they don't unblock the user again. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Having experienced Laddyfisher's aggressive responses and accusatory behavior from their very first edits, I find they lack the ability to assume good faith and are intentionally choosing to be uncooperative and not communicating. They recently made a multitude of "test" edits to their talk page just to reach 1,000 edits, gaming the system and brushed off a warning for this. I find that the unblocking was done in haste without a proper realization of this user's tendentious behavior. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 08:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

you know what maybe my response and behaviour to put it kindly have been less than ideal not that its saying much from myself so honestly i do wanna apology for my lack of good behaviour and my agressive responses when it comes to editing Laddyfisher (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I for one remain unconvinced because you have been warned repeatedly by multiple editors, myself included, about your rude behavior and showed the same disregard to each warning. Flipping your attitude at this point is not going to give you another second chance, to be blunt. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 11:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 not even trying to do that, i'm simply apologising without trying to gain anything i haven't already gotten. Laddyfisher (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

sometimes an apology is just that.. an apology nothing more Laddyfisher (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That still does not excuse your prolonged behavior and abject rejection of cooperation and adequate communication, which are both required along with good faith editing, despite countless warnings in your brief time here thus far. Editing here is a privilege, and your persistent abuse of this site and WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics is glaring and concerning. I remain skeptical at least. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 11:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

well like they say you can't win them all right? I haven't an excuse in my back pocket nor do i have any other tricks left so whatever happens to my account is gonna happen. Laddyfisher (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sad we've never had a chance see eye to eye so wish you well whatever happens Laddyfisher (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That's because you have routinely falsely accused me of being an "edit warrior" since we first interacted and have shown no grace in subsequent communications and lack good faith with numerous editors who notify you of anything. Once trust is broken, it can be difficult to earn. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 12:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Havent done so recently but okay. Also until whatever happens to my account is decided i think this conversation between you and me is over. Laddyfisher (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed for being disruptive. A multitude of useless edits to inflate edit count and chronic hostility — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A WP:RADAR plot appearing to unfold with the user in question appearing to pack up on their Userpage and blanking the latest warnings. Borgenland (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The user will probably try to evade the block by logging out. Before creating the Laddyfisher account, the person has been editing on various IPs and TAs since March 2024. See Special:PermaLink/1346175002#Previous accounts. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Aside

The user in question has continued to edit their talk page, filling it with seemingly-random words. The user in question then reverts those edits, using the reverts to seemingly insult other users, as they did here. Is this TPA-revokable worthy? Given their past incivility violations, is a warning warranted about this? — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 01:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy. Yeah, they seem unwavering in their behavior. They were blocked for incivility. The talk page is not fair game for them to perpetuate it further. TPA was previously revoked in the earlier ban, and I think it definitely should be reinstated here. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My response was to take that page off my watchlist. I would not bother interacting with them. I think it's a judgement call as to whether to revoke TPA. Currently, their actions are causing minimal disruption but are certainly inappropriate. I'm planning to ignore it and hope they just go away, as I try to maintain talk page access if possible. Once removed, appeals go through UTRS, which I absolutely loathe and feel is a very awkward system. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

To be blunt here, but I don't think that is something we should worry about ourselves. Revoking TPA is to prevent misuse of the talk page, which is clearly being exhibited here as a way for them to circumvent the block. Maybe they'll wear themselves out, but I do not think we should be giving them the platform and opportunity to persist in their personal attacks and taunting. We all have more important things to tend to, so best to wash our hands of this once and for all. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 01:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Wasn’t it standard protocol not to wipe active block notices on talk? Borgenland (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's declined unblocks that you can't remove. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

TPA yoinked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Upon further review, I strongly agree with yoinkage. The edit summaries clinched it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I support this blocks. TPA is a privilege for appealing blocks, not a loophole to continue attacking other editors. Staticspector (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Gurdeep Hora

Gurdeep Hora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a genuinely comically evasive discussion about AI use with @Gurkubondinn at User talk:Gurdeep Hora#April 2026, user proceeded to again rewrite their draft with the use of AI - see this diff which contains both WP:RO3 and WP:AIATTR in the line Jeet frequently explored themes of displacement, loss and the complexities of human relationships in times of upheaval. His short story Thandian Kandhan ("Cold Walls") has been widely discussed in academic studies of Partition literature, as well as their request for review at the AFCHD which contains the usual nebulous AI generated promises (what on earth does All facts have been reverified mean? weren't they verified to begin with?)

Whether it's WP:CIR or just plain disregard, this editor needs to make a clear commitment to lock away their ChatGPT and throw away the key or else get blocked. Athanelar (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm pretty sure All facts have been reverified means that they (or their AI) double-checked the facts in question to the best of their ability. I don't have knowledge of the topic in question, so I can't be certain whether this is actually true or not though, or if they're aware that AIs can hallucinate. No other opinion from me here. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Support WP:CIR block. Something this brazen probably belongs at WP:AINB instead. guninvalid (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That talk page discussion is the most horrifyingly obvious case of AI slop misuse and incompetence I've seen. BrandNewSaint (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked from Article and Draft space as a provisional measure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for your message.

  I am making a comprehensive note today to address these concerns and explain the context.

  Although a creative writer myself, its my first effort in writing a Wikipedia article and I genuily expect advise guidence to bring all facets of this well-known, pre-internet era writer of 40-50 books to the readers

  Regards

  Gurdeep Hora Gurdeep Hora (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Let me first thank the reviewers for their time.

  As it’s my first attempt at writing an article for Wikipedia, I admit that there may be initial errors in my understanding of some rules and resultant confusion.

  To clear the status, let me comprehensively share the background and context:

  1. The article is about a famous Indian Author with over fifty published books (Novels, Short Story collections, Criticism, Translation of Classics et el) mainly in Punjabi & Hindi. He was awarded for his writings by various literary bodies including Punjab Government, Punjabi Academy etc.

  2. He lived in the pre-internet era, from 1922 to 1993 and hence it was difficult to easily locate contemporary reviews on the net.

  3. While I was fully aware of his literary legacy, still I collected and read physical copies of most of his published books.

  4. The major challenge was to locate, on the internet, ‘citations and references’ that can be referred and verified by the readers.

  5. For this purpose, I spent days searching the net, using numerous sites, tools and apps, in India (and during my stay in Europe) to find reliable sources and cross- verifying facts against multiple references; writing citations, translating extracts from his original books in Punjabi & Hindi into English, etc.

  6. I found numerous- lists and data published by Encyclopaedias, literary bodies like national Sahitya Academy, Punjabi Sahit Academy, Punjab Government Languages department, Library and University catalogues, newspapers etc. - I tried to find links to every reliable fact that I could.

  7. Every fact and citation was verified several times (and I can share extracts, with full context, from direct sources) and written only after ensuring that I have personally cross-verified the original source.

  8. The ‘latest edits’ were made only after that, and no AI tool was used for writing.

  I request you to please reconsider your observations and will be glad to answer all your specific questions.

  Further, I seek guidance and advise from all experienced reviewers to further improve and align the draft with wiki policies Gurdeep Hora (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  So, this doesn't quite read like AI, but it seems like it's ignoring the main question here. The issue is not the subject of the article you have written, but your conduct. Can you please address your obvious repeated use of AI in this discussion? Given that context, it raises concerns that some of the text in diffs such as this may also be AI-generated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Settignano - problematic WP:OWN behaviour, not taking on board advice, and WP:CIVIL

I've had some concerns about Settignano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a while, and a pattern of somewhat problematic behaviour has been emerging:

• A lot of the pages they have created have been deleted or draftified (eg. TEA Italia (Draftified due to zero sources), Altair (airline (Soft deleted due to failing NCORP - link is to AfD), Aliblu Airways (Redirect restored due to failing GNG, link is to AfD), Connectair (U.K.) (Deleted due to failing GNG, link is to AfD), Skyways Cargo (Deleted due to failing NCORP, link is to AfD). The last of these they argued it should be kept because it is a glorious name), all for the same issues... they simply don't appear to be taking on board experience or advice. It's worth noting that they've also reached multiple level 4 warnings about adding unsourced content over the last few months.
• Displaying WP:OWN, with comments such as I'm very happy to be able to safely correct the page(s) on defunct German airlines. It was definitely in need of corrections and updates. So far, there have been no "intruders" visits..., I'm pleased to inform you that I've completed an initial review of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_airlines_of_the_United_Kingdom. I was very pleased that there were no further "intruders" (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder). ("intruders" seems to be what they use to refer to editors that edit pages they're working on), For some time now, <Mariam nei> has been scrutinizing and questioning my work. As a result, I sent him the message below. I wanted you to be aware of this... (with the header Corrections or intrusions?), I still do not understanbd [sic] why you do not like "my" airline companies
• Pretend they are "better" than other editors, questioning how much other editors know about the subject at hand - How do you really know about airlines?, Anyway it looks like you do not know a lot about airlines....., It seems like you're following my contributions very closely. Don't you trust my commercial aviation knowledge?, Sorry, but it's hard for me to erase the memories of 40 years of civil and commercial aviation...., Occasionally, I may add something of my own because I've worked in civil and commercial aviation for many years.. Some other problematic comments have included I see you're back with all your little corrections... and Why don't you meditate a little about the Alisarda page?.

Most concerningly have been edits made today, where they twice tried to add inappropriate commentary to Air France, and when challenged about it on their talk page decided to leave the following reply while logged out (perhaps a CU can confirm this, although the second reply makes it obvious IMHO) Why don't you take a little time and go stroll with your sweetheart along the Rio de la Plata? with this reply after being asked why they were posting logged out.

Apart from today's mild personal attack, none of their comments or actions are, at least in my opinion, individually actionable... however a definite pattern has been emerging of WP:OWN behaviour, poor sourcing (possibly original research?) and treating editors who disagree with their edits or interfere with "their" pages with some disdain, looking down on them for a perceived lack of subject matter knowledge. With today's shenanigans, I believe it's at the point where they at the very least need a strong reminder of Wikipedia policy - that it's a community project, nobody owns pages, and anyone is welcome to make edits, corrections or disagree with content, and that they really need to start behaving civilly towards their fellow editors. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

TBH I do take offence at someone making repeated Argentinian jokes at my expense because I'm British, not least because of personal connections to people who served in the Falklands War (which he obviously isn't to know). Also making jokes about my girlfriend when he doesn't know if I'm straight, or single, or married. It just highly inappropriate.

Also worth noting - I can give his account names if needed - this editor was blocked for a long term pattern of disruptive editing on it.wikipedia and subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry too. Someone who can't play nice over there is continuing that bad behaviour here. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I repeat, at least for the second time, what happened to me in WP it absolutely has nothing to do with WP en.

Is that clear enough? Settignano (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Good morning.

I needed to read carefully and reflect carefully before responding and expressing my point of view. First, I must note that since your welcome message last February, your attitude toward me has gradually changed. That is, it has become increasingly critical. But you weren't the only one, as <Marian mei> and <10 mmsocket> have often joined the criticism.

I approached WP en because I was absolutely dissatisfied with WP it (I know the reasons, and they shouldn't concern anyone else at WP en). I started doing the same work I was doing when I “left Italy” (my homeland): reviewing all the pages dedicated to all European airlines. Correcting, integrating, adding, and implementing images available from the archive or replacing them with better ones.

What I initially found was fairly comprehensive lists, country by country, but the individual airline pages had various shortcomings: often confusing infoboxes, date errors, conceptual errors, chapters that were either too long (with aeronautically irrelevant details) or far too short, poor-quality or even unrelated images, poorly updated fleets, often lacking authoritative references and notes, and almost no "further reading."

I patiently tried to remedy all of this, page after page, day after day. I invite you to open any of the pages dedicated to small and medium-sized airlines in the UK or Germany and check for yourself. On the other hand, while I received little praise for the work already done (and still in progress), criticisms became more frequent. The fact is that these did not concern the content of the texts but aspects that, in my opinion, were marginal: missing commas, forgotten fullstops, incorrect placement of parentheses, improper titles, etc. This also explains why, at times, my reactions have been irritable and nervous, especially when someone has doubted my knowledge of civil aviation.

But let's get to your message.

First, you mention three minor Italian airlines (which can be ignored and I do not care about them all). Then Connectair (rescued via the Air Europe Express page) and Skyways Cargo, accepted as "reliable" informations. What about the dozens of other pages that I've extensively implemented or created because they were completely missing? For example, Genair, Guernsey Airlines, Hunting Group of companies, all in "List of defunct airlines of the United Kingdom" page?

I disagree with what you consider "serious" abuse on the Air France page: I simply wanted to clarify the corporate differences of a single commercial name that is almost 100 years old. Where, in your opinion, should that data have been entered?

In any case, given that the whole situation has taken a very serious turn, I formally ask you to submit my case to a higher level commission of administrators who will decide... for or against me... Settignano (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And what about your insults? Were they appropriate? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

What insults? List them precisely.... Settignano (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the original filing you’ll see diffs… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no "higher level commission of administrators" here except ArbCom and we're not at a level where they need to be bothered at the moment. But I'm astonished that a user with nearly 5,000 edits thinks that edit to Air France - not on the talk page, but in the article - was appropriate, so much they repeated it. That's a WP:CIR issue right there. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my harsh attitude, but the many criticisms have pushed me to make this request.... Settignano (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You tend to get pushback when you demonstrate the sort of issues described at the start of this thread. That should still not result in "harsh attitude" from you.

I'll also mention, even if it's more my own opinion than anything grounded in policy, that while having been blocked with multiple accounts on other projects does not in and of itself automatically result in being blocked here, it does inevitably influence others' opinions of you and your edits, especially when you start to attract the wrong sort of attention.

For these reasons, if it were I in your shoes, I would make an extra effort to get along with others and abide by P&G. But you do you, I guess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion but I have to remark that I was absolutely dissatisfied with WP it (I know the reasons very well) but it shouldn't concern anyone at WP en.

By the way, an administrator of WP it is looking for getting me back with them. For the time being I still refuse... Settignano (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The point is that while issues on other wikis don’t affect you on en-wiki from a policy standpoint, it will affect how other editors view you and scrutinise your work. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Still yet more WP:OWN behaviour - Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I am also concerned that they've been refspamming Airlines of the British Isles since 1919, which does not appear in Worldcat, either by a title search or the supplied ISBN. There is a CD by that title, but that's not what he's referencing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Virtually 100% of their references are offline and therefore difficult to verify. Using possibly made up references to bolster non-notable entries sounds feasible (and yes I'm trying to assume good faith but it's difficult) 10mmsocket (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Wickstead, M.J. (2014). Airlines of the British Isles since 1919. Staplefield (West Sussex - U.K.): Air Britain (Historians) Ltd. ISBN 978-0-85130-456-4. is a very athoritative text. I do not know why it is not in Worldcat.

Indeed the copy I have in my hands is a CD. It was issued by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd., a very authoritative association of which I am a member since 1969. As far as I know the CD was only made available to members and I suppose it is out of stock (at least to non-members). Settignano (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If it is a private members-only publication then surely it fails WP:V because it's not available for any Wikipedia reader to check? 10mmsocket (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that - it's no different to a paywalled article Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to join Air Britain and then see if there are any copies still available.... Settignano (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Wickstead, M.J. (2014). Airlines of the British Isles since 1919. Staplefield (West Sussex - U.K.): Air Britain (Historians) Ltd. ISBN 978-0-85130-456-4. is a very athoritative text. I do not know why it is not in Worldcat.

Indeed the copy I have in my hands is a CD. It was issued by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd., a very authoritative association of which I am a member since 1969. As far as I know the CD was only made available to members and I suppose it is out of stock (at least to non-members). Settignano (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Nobody outside of you that I can find has that ISBN number or that book. Where did you get the ISBN for the book? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I found the CD (no ISBN) here for sale and mentioned here. Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Also mentioned here in passing, as DVD-only for reasons of text size. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

And not listed here, fwiw. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As noted, Air Britain will sell their publications to both members and non-members (with members paying a reduced rate). While the CD appears to be out of print, copies are still available. They are a reputable publisher, and the reference appears to exist, so the question boils down to whether the large scale addition of the reference as a "See also" reference is appropriate, and whether, where it has been cited as a reference, it has been cited correctly. Nigel Ish (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED! Settignano (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Since I'm a longtime Air Britain member, I purchased it shortly after it went on sale. The CD is in a slipcase, and on the back, the ISBN is clearly written and visible... Settignano (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The CD is in a slipcase, and on the back, the ISBN is clearly written and visible... Settignano (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a book, but a CD.

Since I'm a longtime Air Britain member, I purchased it shortly after it went on sale. The CD is in a slipcase, and on the back, the ISBN is clearly written and visible... Settignano (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

With the lovely distraction this discussion caused, Settignano has still not addressed the concerns raised about their conduct - their WP:OWN behaviour and insults towards 10mmsocket. And before they yet again pretend not to know what we’re on about, the diffs are in the original post. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I asked 10mmsocket to detail my insults. So far, I haven't received a response... Settignano (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That's because an exhaustive list was already provided in the original post of this discussion, which is at the very top of this section. The quotes are in green font to make them easier to see. I would say this insult was particularly unnecessary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A few thoughts. First, the conduct toward other users described above is absolutely inappropriate and Settignano's refusal to acknowledge the insults indicates that the problem is ongoing. Second, the edit to Air France is indefensible and Settignano hasn't really engaged with the criticism there either. Third, on the Air Britain book. A work that is unknown to the libraries of the world is a real problem for WP:V because any editor trying to verify it will think (justifiably) that it's a fictitious reference when they draw a blank. I'll accept in good faith that it exists, and that Air Britain is a reputable organization, but this feels untenable. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there's just something wrong when a bad editor from one project (it.wikipedia) comes to another project (uk.widpedia) and continues that bad behaviour. Personally I'd like to see a UK (or even global) block as I don't believe this editor is a net contributor to the project given the problems they create. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for calling myself a "bad editor" from a "bad nation" after a "bad WP it" experience. And thank you very much for asking that I be blocked in the whole WP world.

By the way, couple of days ago I asked to detail my "insults". So far, I haven't received an answer... Settignano (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Two separate replies have pointed you at the original post made when this thread was opened. Not to put too fine a point on it, we aren’t babysitters - the diffs and quotes are there. We’re waiting for you to address them. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

In my native language these aren't "insults"... but in English they probably are....

Anyway if WP en wants me to leave I will do (once more) without regrets... Settignano (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I asked ... to detail my insults. So far, I haven't received a response...

For anyone who is still unconvinced of the existence of the Airlines of the British Isles since 1919 CD I suggest contacting Air Britain directly and resolving this "thorny" problem... Settignano (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You have already been asked to look at the original post, where your insults are already detailed. For clarity and complete removal of any doubt, I will copy and paste it in its entirety below:

Pretend they are "better" than other editors, questioning how much other editors know about the subject at hand - How do you really know about airlines?, Anyway it looks like you do not know a lot about airlines....., It seems like you're following my contributions very closely. Don't you trust my commercial aviation knowledge?, Sorry, but it's hard for me to erase the memories of 40 years of civil and commercial aviation...., Occasionally, I may add something of my own because I've worked in civil and commercial aviation for many years.. Some other problematic comments have included I see you're back with all your little corrections... and Why don't you meditate a little about the Alisarda page?.

Most concerningly have been edits made today, where they twice tried to add inappropriate commentary to Air France, and when challenged about it on their talk page decided to leave the following reply while logged out (perhaps a CU can confirm this, although the second reply makes it obvious IMHO) Why don't you take a little time and go stroll with your sweetheart along the Rio de la Plata? with this reply after being asked why they were posting logged out. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Just found this thread. The editor is behaving in extreme WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode right now. I asked them to stop adding empty see also sections to articles, and they continue to do it while refusing to engage in discussion. I've also given them a Level 4 unsourced warning (not their first, they're very aware of reference requirements) as they keep adding mass unsourced material to airline articles (mainly fleets, but others as well.) I was going to block them for 24 hours if they do either of the above again, but then I saw this thread and it seems there's a much much bigger issue here. Right now I'm thinking they need an indefinite mainspace block until they address the communities concerns. Canterbury Tail talk 15:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Might be worth pointing out the stern talking to that Settigano got from your fellow admin @The4lines on 25 May and their very glib response to it. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well they continued their editing pattern, so I have blocked them indef from article space. They will need to address all these community concerns to regain their editing permissions. Canterbury Tail talk 16:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Settignano I’d encourage you to return to the thread and address the concerns raised. Indefinite doesn’t mean permanent - if you address the concerns raised and persuade the community that you won’t repeat the problems, it will most likely be lifted. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised because, as a rule, I always add references and notes when available... Settignano (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And yet you don't always add references. You add some, but you don't reference large swathes of your edits. I.e., lets add an airline fleet and supply no references. If no references are available, then you don't add it. And if you're surprised, then I've got nothing for you as it means you haven't/can't read a single thing in this thread or your talk page, including all the final warnings (you know the ones you just comlpetely dismiss and make glib remarks about.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

RE "I always add references and notes when available"

Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published, and the sources are cited against the information they have provided. If you cannot cite a source, then presumably that piece of information didn't come from a reliable published source, in which case it shouldn't go into the article. It's pretty simple, really: either a source is available, and is cited, or you don't make the edit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that when I insert or add a "note" or a "reference" or a "further reading" it is because I physically own those pages (often press cuttings) or those books... Settignano (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Settignano went looking for support at WikiProject Airlines. And my Italian is a bit out of date, but I'm concerned about this comment - I can't quite tell if it's innocent or harassing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a bit tone-deaf, but intended to be friendly. Settignano has inferred the religion of the user as XX and essentially stated something to the effect of "some of my best friends are XX". — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It think it's downright creepy. He follows up the "some of my best friends are XX" by saying "and I had a passionate affair with one who didn't look at all XX". Disturbing. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Ooh, you're right. Rereading that does show that implication. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I got the passionate affair part (which is just what you want to tell a complete stranger about), but didn't think through the implications of the description. :( SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that, if anything, it was Mariamnei who should have responded, because my message was directed at him and no one else...

As for the rest of the comments, I can only say that, for me, it's "a storm in a teacup." Settignano (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't speak Italian, so I put it into Google Translate and somehow the machine translation is even weirder than what you described. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that, if anything, it was Mariamnei who should have responded, because my message was directed at him and no one else...

As for the rest of the comments, I can only say that, for me, it's "a storm in a teacup." Settignano (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that, if anything, it was Mariamnei who should have responded, because my message was directed at him and no one else...

As for the rest of the comments, I can only say that, for me, it's "a storm in a teacup." Settignano (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I believe that, if anything, it was Mariamnei who should have responded, because my message was directed at him and no one else...

As for the rest of the comments, I can only say that, for me, it's "a storm in a teacup." Settignano (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting this same response over and over? You have now posted it four times, in the space of a few minutes.

And you don't get to decide who responds to your comments. That's pretty much inherent in the nature of a public website, even when it comes to an individual user's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe disruption of RfC

SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) is disrupting an RfC (permalink) with personal attacks against Godsy (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe was the subject of an ANI thread, since archived, brought by Godsy. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As some of you know, there has been an issue between User:SmokeyJoe and User:Godsy that has been going on for ten years off and on, about relistings at MFD. Sometimes Godsy has relisted MFDs, and SmokeyJoe has reverted the relistings. There has from time to time been a consensus that MFDs, like other deletion discussions, may sometimes be relisted. SmokeyJoe objects either to relisting of MFDs or to content-free relisting of MFDs. After some argument, I opened a discussion at Village Pump as to whether relisting of MFDs is sometimes permitted. Voorts then started an RFC to resolve the question, mostly in response to SmokeyJoe's concerns, but SmokeyJoe is interfering with an RFC that is in response to his concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues. The first is Godsy's relisting of MFDs. SmokeyJoe objects, and considers the comment-free relistings to be disruptive. The second is SmokeyJoe's reverting of Godsy's relistings. At least Godsy and I consider the reversion of the relistings to be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I may be proposing a sanction against SmokeyJoe depending on how the RFC and this thread progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't blame someone in a long dispute who responds to comments. It might be irritating but the responses are a long way from personal attacks. I understand that someone might object to having their judgment questioned, but I don't think euphemisms are helpful. The dispute appears to be that (it is claimed) MfDs are not routinely relisted, except by one editor. And, those relistings are a problem (I don't know what problem but I imagine they might clutter up already congested noticeboards). The community needs to formulate an RfC question that both parties believe addresses the problem. First, however, it would be good if there could be a summary of the essential issue with knowledgeable people confirming or denying the claim that routine relisting of MfDs is not done, except by one editor. I would prefer to address the issue rather than knock one side out over technicalities. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The question was defined to address SmokeyJoe's concern. Even if it weren't, it's still not appropriate to repeatedly disrupt an RfC by asserting that the issue is a single editor. If I were uninvolved, I would have blocked SmokeyJoe, and if this were a new editor doing the same thing, I think most admins would've blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Robert McClenon: I would point out that SmokeyJoe has chided others relentlessly over the years for relisting in the same fashion as they have me. Here is a sampling: 2010—Cunard, 2016—1—Northamerica1000, 2016—2—Northamerica1000, 2016—3—Northamerica1000, 2016—4—Northamerica1000, 2016—5—Northamerica1000, 2016—6—Northamerica1000, 2017—1—J947, 2017—2—Queen of Hearts, 2020—Awesome Aasim, 2024—1—Queen of Hearts, 2024—2—Northamerica1000. Here is an example of a relist by another user being reverted: 2016—Ricky81682. These lists are not exhaustive and reversions are much harder to locate in archive searches. This may be a significant contributing factor as to why relists are less common at MfD; SmokeyJoe participates in near every discussion there. Who wants to engage in a reasonable action for which they may be chided, reverted, etc.? Perhaps, given my experience (especially now), I shared my conflicting (and consensus-based) view on the matter more stalwartly than others. Regardless, the culture needs some adjustment. This matter needs some attention so that no one is subjected to such antics again. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You're both well established editors in good standing. My humble opinion is that it would best to investigate the underlying issue rather than the current conflict which is just the natural result of two heads clashing. You might be able to demonstrate that SmokeyJoe has done something bad but that would still leave the question of how relistings should occur unresolved. It's simple: formulate an RfC that both parties agree would address the issue. Don't frame an RfC that one side believes has some defect. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Johnuniq writes: First, however, it would be good if there could be a summary of the essential issue with knowledgeable people confirming or denying the claim that routine relisting of MFDs is not done, except by one editor. I have been one of the regular editors at MFD for several years, and my observation is that there is no routine relisting of MFDs. There is occasional relisting of MFDs by Godsy and by other editors. The relisting does not clutter up already congested noticeboards because a relist of an MFD simply changes the ordering of the MFDs in a single list. SmokeyJoe objects to this rearrangement of the list because it moves the MFD from Old Business to Current Discussion. I consider the relisting to be slightly useful because it moves the MFD from Old Business to Current Discussion. I think that is a summary of the essential issue. SmokeyJoe said that he objected to content-free relisting of MFDs, so voorts started an RFC about content-free relisting of MFDs, and SmokeyJoe now says that is the wrong question.

SmokeyJoe writes: When someone is told their contributions are negative, they should consider the feedback, not insist that there’s not a rule elsewhere disallowing what they like to do.. He is referring to Godsy, but I think that SmokeyJoe is the only editor who has told Godsy that her contributions are negative, and other editors have either said nothing or said, essentially, that they don't care.

Johnuniq writes: It's simple: formulate an RfC that both parties agree would address the issue. Don't frame an RfC that one side believes has some defect. I don't think that is simple, when SmokeyJoe says that the issue is Godsy, and other editors think that the issue is a policy issue. I have considerable experience in formulating RFCs that multiple parties agree to, when there is agreement that there is a content issue, but this does not look like a case where the parties can agree on what the domain is. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I don't agree with voorts that SmokeyJoe was engaging in personal attacks. Saying that an editor has been exercising bad judgment in relisting is not a personal attack. Trying to discuss allegations of editor misconduct at Village Pump is not a personal attack. But SmokeyJoe is disrupting the RFC by being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's a personal attack because there's no consensus that Godsy even is using poor judgment, and although SmokeyJoe has repeated that ad nauseum, there's no evidence of it. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

We are in disagreement as to the meanings of words, as to the detail of what one defines as a personal attack. We are in more substantive agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I formulated such an RfC. SmokeyJoe himself said: The problem is comment-free relisting. All downside, no upside. When I started an RfC on precisley that topic, SmokeyJoe switched to claiming that the issue is really about a single editor. I do not believe that SmokeyJoes is acting in good faith to resolve this dispute. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts: Par for the course with the first RfC (from 10 years ago):

• It is not a question of "allowed". The question is whether it is appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions in such a way that the discussion goes to the top of the list. ... --User:SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• The RfC is asking the wrong question. --User:SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Cunard, I am disappointed at your filing of two inappropriate questions. The first was completely the wrong question. ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There was seemingly a semi-similar kerfuffle about the RfC question at the time being SmokeyJoe's own; however, just as now, it all appears seemingly like an attempt to obscure and shift the goalposts (best way I could think of to put it offhand). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

You say “relentless”. I say perfectly logical and polite. Not a single editor that I have addressed provided a single non-negative purpose of their relistings. It is dangerous to speculate on what others are thinking, I can think of no explanation other than blinding following a practice. How are they to know there is a downside if no one mentions it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

How is it polite to repeatedly and publicly chastise a person that they have poor judgment? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I went through the old diffs listed. Which of them are objected to?

“Poor judgement”? So, we are talking about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps. Godsy relisted here. There is little projectspace advice on when to relist, and when not to. On permissibility, it is wide open. It is therefore a matter of judgement on whether any editor relists any discussion. On this occasion, I describe that judgement as poor, I call that discussion one that should not be relisted. I did not mean that her judgement of often or generally poor. I suppose I could have be better written: In this case, the choice to relist was not obviously justified.

By calling for “comment” in relist, I hope to understand why someone chooses to relist that discussion at that time, when I think there was no good reason to, and reasons not to. So, I ask. Usually, I am ignored. So I challenge with slightly more strength. If still ignored, as on two occasions I gather from the diffs above, I perform a BRD revert of the relist that I allege was a negative contribution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?:

Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?, Yes, there is consensus to support relistings of MfDs, regardless of contributions to the discussion, when done in good faith. This procedure is already in effect at WP:AFD, which does not significantly hinder resolution of deletion discussions.

In your last paragraph, you are admitting to repeated pointy behavior that is contrary to consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In addition to what voorts notes, my relist was a classical example fit for a textbook on 'when to relist'. 50% of the participants advocated for deleting the page, while 50% of the participants advocated for retaining the page (in some form). Rationales were short and no back-and-forth discussion had occurred. Consensus was clearly split and had yet to be achieved. ~8 days (more than a week) had passed since the beginning of the discussion. The circumstances are crystal clear and, thus, no relisting comment is warranted. This would easily pass muster through general relisting standards with flying colors at any venue. Editor qualifications to relist a discussion are the same as required to close a discussion (ibid.); given that relisting is akin to a closing action, reversion (unless as an administrative action) is highly dubious (at the very least). Given the RfC and deletion guidance cited (by voorts and myself respectively), calling this particular relisting example "not obviously justified" or a "a negative contribution" demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of relisting or the application of an inscrutable pseudo-standard lacking consensus (or both). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Godsy, I apologise. I dislike comment-free relisting, but right now I cannot imagine why I chose it to try to make a point. As per your comment, it does look pretty reasonable relist, four disparate comments where the past participants would do well to come back and discuss some more. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, SmokeyJoe, I appreciate the sincerity and accept your apology. I truly hope relisting debacles can be warded off in the future, and that anyone relisting at MfD is shown grace and courtesy. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe has repeatedly claimed that Godsy's MfD relistings are disruptive because they don't leave comments when doing so (see, e.g., Special:Diff/1364388825). He also said:

This is precisely about one specific behaviour of one specific editor, since about ten years ago [2016]. They and you [i.e., me, voorts] are responding with widespread generalities, and widespread generalising is evasion of the issue.

What happened ten years ago is relevant, but not in SJ's favor. I've now looked more closely at the ten-year-old close of the previous RfC on the issue of MfD relists. @Cunard posed a second question in that RfC, which was copied from a comment made by SmokeyJoe. The close found the following consensus:

Is it appropriate to indiscriminately and without meaningful comment relist old poorly attended discussions?, Yes, there is consensus to support relistings of MfDs, regardless of contributions to the discussion, when done in good faith.

Per Godsy's evidence above, SJ has for over ten years been harassing editors for failing to leave comments when relisting MfDs, despite the fact that an RfC concluded that any relist is acceptable so long as it is made in good faith. Now, we've been forced into another RfC on the same exact question because SJ won't drop the stick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

“Harassing” is not a reasonable word choice. I didn’t follow them to other locations. I didn’t make repeated reference to old actions. There has been no “forcing” of RfCs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was reflecting today, and (unfortunately) remembered this. Quite a while back, SmokeyJoe decided that they did not like the color of my signature. So they decided to, literally, change it: ~1~, ~2~, ~3~, ~4~, ~5~. I am glad I put that out of my mind, because I now remember being very distraught at the time (and a much less-seasoned contributor). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Genuine question from someone with zero skin in this relist issue. You frame it as they did not like it, @SmokeyJoe says it was unreadable. I happen to agree that the color is much better contrast now. Do you have reason to believe it was personal preference vs. accessibility? We as a community often ask people to edit their sigs due to readability issues. Star Mississippi 15:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi: I concur as well that it is more readable; my older lcd screen rendered it quite differently. Accessability might well have been a significant factor in their opinion on the matter. Not intending to detract from that by any means. It is one thing to ask someone to change it and there are a good ways to seek resolution if they do not (if one truly desires). Coming around after them and attempting to force the matter is not the way. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Her signature was unreadable. It was objectively failing accessibility policy (WP:SIGAPP). As I remember, she ignored my request to alter her signature to have the minimum contrast, to make her it policy compliant. Demonstrating how to fix the problem seemed obvious. What should I have done differently? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Close with no action. There was no disruption of the RfC. There is no disruption of an RfC. The diff is not a personal attack. I admit that I have always found effective communication with Godsy difficult, but I commit to taking care to not making perceivable personal attacks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I apologise to all, for this trouble, beginning with allowing myself to fall into irrationality over MfD comment-free relisting, and doing this inappropriate revert. On personal reflection, it took me a long time to appreciate that I was being irrational, and this is my best explanation for why I had no good timely answer for Godsy on my talk page.

I commit to stop complaining or fussing about MfD relisting.

I commit to addressing others, especially Godsy, only with grace and courtesy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Where We Are

On the one hand, I don't think that there can be an RFC that will address the concerns both of voorts and Godsy and me, and of SmokeyJoe, because there is no agreement as to the domain. I think that User:Johnuniq is honorably mistaken in thinking that a mutually agreeable RFC can be developed. On the other hand, the RFC is proceeding, and the disruption is being ignored. Maybe the RFC should be allowed to proceed by continuing to ignore the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I quoted SmokeyJoe in the RfC comments section saying explicitly and without qualification that the issue was comment-free relists. I don't know why SmokeyJoe is now denying this and claiming the issue is with a single editor. I think SmokeyJoe should be warned to stop acting like a child. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 1 - Restrictions on SmokeyJoe

The more I read of this, the more convinced I am that there needs to be a formal restriction on SmokeyJoe. Given the constantly shifting focus, I think that the narrowest that is guaranteed to end to dispute is a combination of:

• SmokeyJoe is topic banned from the intersection of MfD and reslisting. They may not comment in any way regarding whether a specific MfD discussion, and/or MfD discussions generally, should or should not be relisted. This applies equally to discussions that have and have not been relisted. They may contribute to MfD discussions that have been relisted but may not comment on or otherwise make reference to the decision to relist.
• SmokeyJoe is topic banned from the intersection of MfD and user:Godsy:
  • They may not comment on or about Godsy in the context of MfD, broadly interpreted.
  • They may not comment on or about actions taken by Godsy at or in connection with MfD.
  • They may contribute to MfD discussions that Godsy has also contributed to as long as they do not mention Godsy.
  • They may contribute to MfD discussions that have been relisted by Godsy, subject to the topic ban, as long as they do not mention Godsy.
  • They may not contribute to MfD discussions initiated by Godsy, unless Godsy's contribution is explicitly and exclusively procedural on behalf of another editor.
  • They may not contribute to MfD discussions about pages where Godsy is the first and/or a significant contributor to the nominated page.

If all that seems too complicated, there is the option of a simple one-way interaction ban and/or topic ban from MfD. Users who do not drop the stick may find it involuntarily removed from their grasp. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support - It is unfortunate that SmokeyJoe, an experienced editor, has a persistently disruptive focus on a supposed problem that the community does not consider to be a problem, and has been intermittently interfering with discussions for at least ten years. I was about to propose a simpler and more restrictive topic-ban, and this is fine. This has been going on for too long, and the community needs to control this campaign that has elements of harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support the TBAN. I think a complete one-way IBAN would be cleaner, but support the narrower IBAN if consensus for it develops. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  SJ has continued to post about the issue while this discussion has been open:

• Special:Permalink/1364420961
• Special:Diff/1364686832
• Special:Diff/1364687300

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The first and third examples are about the relisting of MFDs, which is a legitimate topic, and is what the RFC is about, and would not have been in violation of a simple one-way interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose overly specific sanction. Proposals 2 and 3 covers this, and if proposal three gains consensus, I would not want additional sanctions that need to be reviewed on an appeal or that remain after an appeal. If only this were to gain consensus it would be a royal pain to enforce. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 2: One-Way Interaction Ban (SmokeyJoe)

As an alternative to a bespoke set of restrictions, I propose a one-way interaction ban on SmokeyJoe interacting with Godsy. This will allow SmokeyJoe to explain that he considers the relisting of MFDs undesirable, provided that he does not refer to Godsy.

• Support as proposer (as an alternative to proposal 1). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• I support this as an alternative to the more limited interaction ban I proposed, as a second choice to that, but only in combination with a topic ban that encompasses discussions of relists at MfD (whether that is the one I proposed or something simpler). I believe that both restrictions are required at this point to end the disruptive behaviour, although I would be open in the future to considering appeals of the two separately. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• As noted above, I support a one-way IBAN, with the narrower IBAN as a second choice, and the proposed TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I would prefer proposal three, and I don't see a reason to impose a one-way IBAN on SJ in areas outside of MfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Topic Ban from Relisting

The last paragraph of this comment makes me think there should be a TBAN from any edits about relisting, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I will note that SmokeyJoe has, above, apologized, too late, but better late than never. My conclusion is that SmokeyJoe is the one who has poor judgment about relisting, and if he avoids acting on and discussing relisting, he will avoid making mistakes that cause dissension. It is true that the RFC was not disrupted, but that is because other editors acted wisely to avoid disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support marginal topic, and a broad TBAN is easier to review and enforce than proposal 1. Please note that my opposes above stand even if this does not pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. SmokeyJoe's apology is appreciated, but (as Robert McClenon) we're better off having this on the books. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User behaviour

Wanted to raise a concern about M-Metro37 (talk · contribs), a new user whose behaviour so far has been somewhere along the line between unhelpful and outright disruptive.

Apart from a few reverted mainspace edits that weren't quite vandalism per se but certainly weren't particularly productive or useful, and attempts to add both their userpage and an otherwise blank sandbox page to Wikiproject tracking categories, their edit history has otherwise consisted entirely of creating drafts like Draft:Noir Mc. Gell and Draft:Plain Mum, the complete text of which in both cases is just "[Article Title] is the name of the person. He died on [Date]." along with an infobox that includes an offsite link to a nonexistent Fandom.com page, but no discernible content or referencing to even verify their existence let alone suggest any particular reason why they would belong in an encyclopedia.

Both pages, further, have been added to categories even though they have already been advised about WP:DRAFTNOCAT —multiple times in the case of Noir Mc Gell, including once after the DRAFTNOCAT advisory, and once for Plain Mum but still after that advisory. Both pages also feature short descriptions (and nonsense redlinked categories like Category:Woman deaths or Category:Mother deaths, that it beggars belief that anybody would ever even think we would have at all) suggesting that the subjects are female despite the use of "he" instead of "she" in the body text.

I'm not willing to die on the hill that their behaviour has quite reached the point of needing a full block yet — but it's certainly reached the point of needing stronger warnings and closer monitoring than I'm prepared to invest in it, so I wanted to bring it here for wider attention. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted the drafts as nonsense/hoaxes, notified them of this thread, and warned them. Fences&Windows 01:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This user's most recent edit was adding the {{Administrator}} template to their user page. I removed it along with another improper template. Hellbus (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Between the nonsense drafts, ignoring other editors warnings and now falsely claiming admin status on their user page, I believe a block is the option until they can demonstrate an understanding of the basic policies. Staticspector (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Palatinosunriser and Theonewithreason personal attacks and WP:AGF failures

On Serbia, Theonewithreason (talk · contribs) has been editing for a long time, recently an ″important historical WWI image″ was added by Palatinosunriser (talk · contribs) which displayed Serbian soldiers marching through the Arc de Triomphe, due to the amount of images already present the image was instead added to a less relevant section, which I removed explaining that the image can be added elsewhere or replace another image. Theonewithreason did not seem to take this well, as they reverted my edit saying ″rv actually it is a quite a important image, especially a reminder to ones like you″

The Theonewithreason ones like you comment I believe speaks for itself as a WP:NPA violation, in response to me telling them about this, they instantly deleted my talk page notice, as they seem to do with anything remotely critical of them on their own talk page. They proceeded to post what I felt was retaliatory notices on my talk page, including a notification of a WP:CTOP I am already aware of. This whole exchange can be seen on my talk page.

After Theonewithreason eventually backed off as can be seen on my talk page, suddenly claiming assuming WP:GOODFAITH, Palatinosunriser once again added the image, accusing me of ″disruptive removal of sourced content″. They much like Theonewithreason deletes their notices calling out their behaviour.

The article has a history of POV pushing, both on and off wiki, which has resulted in actions taken against editors such as Sadko (talk · contribs), I doubt these editors will listen to me so I think it is necessary to bring it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerBurden (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

TylerBurden has been now reported for edit warring on Serbia page for making 5 reverts in one and half day,

This editor has a long history of treating that page as WP:Own and insulting other editors for which they have been warned for not to do so, best example are comments like this where they called me and other editor a tendentious nationalists [] this is just a one of several examples where this editor expulses extreme aggression and WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour, the picture that was added by Palatinosunriser was made in WP:AGF commemorating Serbian army celebration of the ww1 victory and this editor has obviously huge problems with adding it however they were quite engaged in adding pictures of figures like Slobodan Milosevic with quite non neutral description of that political figure [], personally I am not a fan of Milosevic, but I dont see this kind of descriptions of i.e Hitler on Germany page or even inclusions of Ante Pavelic or Franjo Tudjman on Croatia page which leads that editor is the one with obvious POV pushing especially on Serbia page. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• No one comes out looking good here. All editors involved went over the line in terms of the edit warring at Serbia; Theonewithreason further made personal attacks against TylerBurden, and doubled down on them here in this thread with the and this editor has obviously huge problems with adding it comment. Consequently, I've issued TB and Palatinosunriser are short, 24-hour partial blocks from Serbia; Theonewithreason has received a 2-week full block due to the personal attacks and that this is relatively recent recidivism for prior edit warring in January that resulted in a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but TylerBurden is explicitly acting in bad faith, he has supported sockpuppets (the sock in question), been banned by ArbCom multiple times, and now is engaging in edit-warring and anti-Serbian vandalism by removing a historically significant, sourced WWI officials image, all while spouting nonsense verbiage instead of outlining his issues on the talk page. The imagem and source is not problem here. He simply doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palatinosunriser (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Palatinosunriser, you don't know what you are talking about in this message. Which is okay as long as you accept that this hasn't been vandalism nor motivated by anti-Serbianism and won't repeat the accusation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I will accept that action on Serbia, the response of these editors do not exactly inspire confidence that they are going to behave though, as they appear to have a disconnect with WP:DUE on this article. Wikipedia articles should not only include "positive" content, editors who are making arguments on these ground rather than Wikipedia policies should not be involved in these topics in the first place, especially not when they act like this. TylerBurden (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that it's difficult to see what the basis of Theonewithreason's POV complaint regarding Special:Diff/1165960416 is; if anything this seems rather charitable to Milosevic. Germany does in fact have a portrait of Hitler, with the caption Adolf Hitler, dictatorial Führer of Nazi Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. Any further arguments against the inclusion of Milosevic's portrait on POV grounds once their block expires would do well to explain (with sources) how it deviates away from neutrality. Simply insisting on it ipso facto starts off as a lazy argument, and becomes tendentious if it is repeated without support. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

But the Croatia article does not include a portrait of the notable Croatian Nazi collaborator and Holocaust perpetrator Ante Pavelić, nor an image of Pavelić with Hitler (), nor a portrait of the more recent Franjo Tuđman accompanied by descriptions of the war crimes surrounding Operation Storm and the Croat-Bosniak War. So Whitewashing POV. Therefore, including an irrelevant portrait of Milošević in the Serbia article is simply POV. If it is ok, then why remove reliably sourced content depicting Serbia's historical WWI relations with France and the other victorious Allied Powers, including the Serbian Army marching with the Allied armies at the Arc de Triomphe in France? Such removals look like an anti-Serbian narrative control attempt by excluding reliably sourced content, rather than applying content policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palatinosunriser (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

But the Croatia article does not include a portrait of the notable Croatian Nazi collaborator and Holocaust perpetrator Ante Pavelić, nor an image of Pavelić with Hitler ([184])

I can explain that one. (You can look at my editing history and you will see I am neither an Ustashe apologist nor a fan (the opposite actually).) The modern state of Croatia in its constitution rejects NDH and doesn't recognise Pavelić as a Croatian statesman. He is a traitor and Nazi collaborator who ruled a Nazi German puppet state. His remains are buried in Spain, he has nothing to do with Croatia.

For what it's worth, I think the picture of Serbian soldiers marching through the Arc dr Triopmhe is DUE, because they were victors in WWI and it is a significant part of Serbia's history. I just didn't want to join the edit war while it was going on.

Regarding Tuđman and war crimes, correct me if I am wrong, but Tuđman was never charged nor convicted of war crimes. Whether that is due to him dying before he could be or because he isn't guilty of any is not something we can speculate on. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You make a correct point. Modern-day Croatia condemns the legacy of Nazi NDH collaboration. Germany also disavows its Nazi past, yet a portrait of Hitler appears in Germany article, following that same logic, Pavelić’s portrait should also be included in Croatia article. As for Tuđman example, he was convicted of war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, but since he died beforehand, the conviction became void. Tuđman died in 1999, ICTY created in 1993, first ICTY condemnation of Croatian military was in 2000 (Tihomir Blaskic) ( UN news ) If had Milošević died before being convicted (he died in 2006), he would have met the same fate as Tuđman, the conviction would have been invalidated. Anyway, I appreciate that you acknowledged the validity of my indignation regarding the removal of the historical image of Serbia in WWI. It is a high-quality image for that era and is worth including in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palatinosunriser (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You make a correct point. Modern-day Croatia condemns the legacy of Nazi NDH collaboration. Germany also disavows its Nazi past,

It's not the same, though. Condemning is not the same as not recognising. After Hitler committed suicide, Admiral Dönitz became führer and signed Germany's unconditional surrender. He was the recognised leader of Nazi Germany and thus was able to sign the surrender. Pavelić and his puppet government were never recognised by the victors. Pavelić ran away like a rat from a sinking ship. Croatia, along with the rest of Yugoslavia, was liberated by the Partisans. NDH was an illegitimate creation and Pavelić was an illegitimate leader, this is enshrined in the current constitution of Croatia. In the first section, "Historical foundations", it says: the Croatian nation to full sovereignty, has manifested itself: ... in the establishment of the foundations of state sovereignty during the course of the Second World War, as expressed in the decision of the Territorial Antifascist Council of the National Liberation of Croatia (1943) in opposition to proclamation of the Independent State of Croatia (1941)(emphasis mine) (sabor.hr) So not only is NDH not recognised as part of the historical foundation of Croatia, Croatian historical foundation is defined in part as opposition to NDH. It would be like the United States putting Jefferson Davis on their currency.

Ironically, putting Pavelić's image on the Croatia article would serve to legitimise him and his rule, which is offensive, frankly.

This discussion is offtopic for this thread, but I'd be happy to continue it on the Croatia article talk page, or another talk page, if you want, although I think I laid out the argument against inclusion clear enough. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• A reminder that Serbia is under an Arbcom-imposed Contentious Topic. I've added an editnotice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The last time I had an interaction with Theonewithreason about a matter of abusing Wikipedia was in early June at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 12#De-linking "Serbia" in infobox where I asked them and another editor if they have a justification for a series of edits that isn't in blatant conflict with WP:ARBMAC. There was no response, and it's since been archived. In light of these recent events, I don't see much reason to tolerate further editing in this topic area that isn't based on policies and guidelines. If we have a subsequent discussion on this matter, it will be about a ban. --Joy (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

BLP Privacy Violation: Removal of private relative and inaccurate birth name

Signature for archive bot. I'm not the person who originally blanked this section; I just simply added a signature and re-implemented the courtesy blanking template using the |type=section parameter. Graham87 (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Karaokelegend - high-volume AI use and lying about it

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

Same old song (no pun intended):

• Has been making edits at lightning speed, most with AI edit summaries and sometimes as little as 3 minutes apart -- and given that several are consecutive edits to the same article, it is virtually impossible that they pre-planned them. For instance, Special:Diff/1363030107 was made 4 minutes after an edit to the same article, and it beggars belief that they Removed irrelevant 1993 NYT opinion sources that predated the text; added 2004 Austin Chronicle source to verify retirement in 4 minutes. Especially given that the Austin Chronicle URL doesn't exist..
• In case WP:DUCK isn't enough, Special:Diff/1363979466 contains a lot of markup cruft of the form [span_2](end_span), which is a known Google Gemini bug. (This edit also cites Grokipedia.)
• When warned for this rather obvious AI use, they denied using AI, and also made some comments that are just false in general; for instance, when Special:Diff/1356850582 introduced invalid infobox parameters to Stallion (band), they claimed that the unknown parameters came from an older revision I restored, not anything I added, which is obviously not true since the older revisions didn't even have an infobox in the first place.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This "dog ate my unknown parameters" claim is at , btw. Morwen (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless they come here to address these issues, I think an article space block is necessary. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space. They already responded to the accusation, and it was ridiculous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Good block. I expect any response would just be more lies. Ravenswing 21:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Ravenswing that this is a good block. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed seems like a necessary move in this case. ScottyNolan (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLP policy at Talk:Ann Widdecombe

Ann Widdecombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

U-Mos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Snokalok2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What could very well have been a constructive discussion on the appropriateness of certain categories relating to 'murder' on the article Ann Widdecombe has unfortunately been disrupted by several editors refusing to accept core WP:BLP policy, along with requirements for verifiability and neutrality, along with basic common sense, who seem to think that a talk page is an appropriate substitute for a courtroom, and who seem to lack even the most elementary understanding of the English legal system, and that the talk page is an appropriate place to assert (a) that a murder has taken place (something to be determined at trial, not on Wikipedia), and what is worse, (b) the fact that someone has been charged justifies the categories on the basis that it is "Not really alleged anymore". Given that this declaration of guilt is entirely contrary to WP:BLP policy, I reverted the post, by contributor UKresearcherTV, only to see it restored, first by contributor U-Mos, with no explanation whatsoever, and then, after I reverted it again, by contributor Snokalok2, who at least provided an edit summary, albeit one that likewise seems to be based on the premise that government ministers can pre-empt the courts and declare people guilty. Clearly this violation of policy needs action: at minimum, making it absolutely clear that Wikipedia doesn't determine whether a murder has taken place, the courts do, and more specifically, under no circumstances is it appropriate to assert, or imply, that a suspect - named or otherwise - is guilty of murder prior to conviction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I need you to understand the very simple difference between saying “X person is the killer” (BLP vio), and citing RSP green sources to repeat what those sources say in their own voice - that someone was simply killed, without making any determinations as to who killed her. A court determines if the accused killer is guilty, a court does determine whether someone was killed or not - generally if police have determined something was a killing and RSP say it’s a killing in their own voice, then one can cite those RSP to say it’s a killing on a bloody talk page without you edit-war refactoring.

If that is an unclear distinction for you, I would advocate for a BOOMERANG on grounds of incompetence to edit. Snokalok2 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The police do not make legal determinations. The courts do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The courts determine guilt, but if police say that someone was killed and they never catch the killer, and RSP say that someone was killed, then we are allowed to say it as well. Like how Nicole Brown Simpson was killed even if no one was convicted for it. We still say she was killed, we just don't say that OJ did it because he wasn't convicted of it.

Again, incompetence to edit. I advocate for a full BOOMERANG, as Andy's participation on the talk page has been entirely disruptive in nature. Snokalok2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

You may consider pointing out core Wikipedia policy to be 'disruptive', I doubt you'll get much support for that argument though. As for what the police say, you are well aware I'm sure of the multiple times the police have already had to revise statements they had earlier made regarding this case. It isn't their job to determine whether a crime has taken place. It isn't their job to determine that someone has committed a crime. Their job is to gather evidence, and present it to the courts. This is an elementary principle of English law, and indeed law in most common-law jurisdictions in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So, apologies in advance, as this is something of a hobby horse of mine, but courts don't actually determine whether a murder has taken place; they determine criminal culpability for actions. What I mean by that is it is entirely coherent to say that I believe O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown despite the fact that he was found not guilty. As to the page in question, I don't think calling it a murder on the talk page falls under WP:BLP. As mentioned, the police have basically said as much. I would not, however, support that being on the main page at this point. That said, I do think that attributing the murder to any living person certainly is a violation of WP:BLP, absent extraordinary circumstances. Just my two cents. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The police do not make legal determinations. The courts do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Murder (aka homicides) is determined by a medical examiner, not the courts. Unsolved murders are still murders even when a case has never gone to court. We follow reliable sources, and if reliable sources refer to something as murder, we call it that. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We are discussing a death in England, not the United States. We have coroners, not medical examiners. And coroners do not determine whether a person has been murdered or not. As for 'reliable sources', a source that states that someone has been murdered prior to trial is not reliable for that fact, since the courts are the only venue capable of making such a decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Also even in the US a large percentage of homicides are not murders and few even think they are. Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not responsive to anything I said. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• I did indeed undo AtG removing another editor's talk page comment, in blatant violation of WP:TPO. Sad to see that they have chosen to continue the spurious accusations, insults and straw man arguments here. U-Mos (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Would you support my proposal for a BOOMERANG on grounds of disruptiveness and incompetence? Snokalok2 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I very much doubt that anyone is going to take much notice of calls for a 'boomerang' from involved contributors who seem not to have read either WP:BLP, or WP:TPG: note that the latter explicitly permits removal of "violations of ... living persons ... policies". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Repeatedly declaring a comment you didn't like a BLP violation doesn't make it so. As clearly multiple people disagree with your interpretation, are you planning at any point to explain why you consider this comment so egregious that it justifies removal? U-Mos (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I see no need to explain the obvious. The post was asserting that the individual the police have in custody murdered Ann Widecombe. How else can one possibly interpret it? What else exactly could "Not really alleged anymore" possibly mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The comment argues that Widdecombe was definitely murdered (which I do not agree with, if it needs stating). It does not in any way claim that the suspect is guilty of it. It is not a BLP violation. U-Mos (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I fail to see how else the post could be interpreted. Everything remains an allegation until a trial says otherwise. That's how the law works. And if this wasn't about the individual being held, why does the post mention this at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BLP trumps WP:TPO and always will. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  True. I strongly disagree that BLP was violated by that comment, so TPO applies. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

This convo revolves good faith disagreements about BLP policy. I think a more appropriate place for this conversation would be WP:BLPN. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, about that: You've also accused people of spamming, threatened to report people who go against you, and are now saying you want to move the discussion to BLPN - all derailing genuine discussion. That's the sort of response I've been getting to pointing out policy. That, and mind-numbing irrelevances about Jack the Ripper in the same post. Not a lot of 'good faith' there. It sees evident, if you look at the thread, that several of the participants were less than keen to have the wider community involved, and would rather cobble together a policy-violating 'consensus' amongst themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

You're correct I did not see that before. I appreciate your willingness to take it to BLPN and am disappointed that a fellow editor interpreted it as an attempt to be disruptive.

That said, I've seen "death" vs "killing" vs "murder" argument a number of times and, in general, it would probably benefit the community to have a wider discussion, but that discussion would probably be better once this current disagreement has died down. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, I have my doubts that many of those involved in the dispute documented above would take much notice of 'wider discussion', given their apparent unwillingness to actually look at the relevant policies. The issue, as I've seen it, is that far too many contributors have a vague idea about general policies towards sourcing etc, but almost none for the specific issues that topics like this involve. Getting people to acknowledge simple things like the inappropriateness of describing a suspect as a 'perpetrator' is exhausting work, and more often than not ends up getting dragged into relentless whataboutisms regarding questionable content in other articles. What is needed isn't so much discussion of policies, but discussion, and then action, centred on getting existing policy enforced. The simple fact is that existing Wikipedia content is riddled with gross WP:BLP violations, and there's almost nothing any one individual can do about it. If I get short-tempered about it sometimes (which I'll freely acknowledge I do) it's because of the frustrations of having to go through the same arguments again and again, coming from people who treat policy as some sort of impediment to editing, best ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who's seen me talk about this knows that I'm a stickler for a strict interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME and even I think that it's obviously the case that whether a murder has happened is not a BLP issue. So, I definitely support a WP:TROUT for Andy for insisting to the contrary.

The "official" guidance for the purpose of Wikipedia is WP:DEATHS, which does indeed suggest waiting for a murder conviction before calling something "murder"... but its reasoning is not BLP, it's that whether a killing is a murder as opposed to, say, manslaughter is only determined when a conviction actually happens. Based on that, I'd also oppose calling this "murder" in the article, but I think it's just ridiculous to remove someone's post on the talk page for, uh, not even saying that they think it's murder or should be called murder but that the police called it murder, a fact they backed up with reliable sources provided in the comment. If Andy keeps on doing this I'd definitely be for a stronger WP:BOOMERANG than just a trout. Loki (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove the post because 'the police called it a murder'. They didn't. They said that they had arrested someone "on suspicion of the murder of Widdecombe". A statement that you suspect that someone has done something isn't an assertion that said something had in fact taken place. What I am objecting to is the statement from UKresearcherTV that this was "Not really alleged anymore" - an assertion that the person the police had arrested had in fact murdered Ann Widdecombe. UKresearcherTV was twisting the the Home Secretary's words to imply that she has stated that the suspect being held in fact committed murder. That isn't how the law works. The Home Secretary may or may not know the 'full picture' as UKresearcherTV claimed earlier - I rather doubt she does, since it isn't a part of her job to follow every detail of ongoing police investigations - but either way, she doesn't make rulings. Courts do. Up until then, it is all 'allegations', and trying to argue otherwise on a Wikipedia talk page discussing an ongoing investigation is a violation of policy. In isolation, maybe it could have been ignored, but look at the broader context, where we have contributors making facile arguments like If we want to say Widdecombe was murdered BLP would have no relevance as she is not a living person. The discussion had degenerated into a whole series of refusals to get the point (that it isn't down to Wikipedia to pre-empt the courts) and was turning into an exercise in cherry-picking isolated words in order to 'prove' that the suspect being held had committed murder. That is why I objected to "Not really alleged anymore". AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll say it again even more directly: at no point in that discussion has anyone claimed that the suspect is guilty of Widdecombe's murder. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

So what the heck does "Not really alleged anymore" mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It means RSP, like the one OP put in his comment, say she was killed. The arrested individual didn’t necessarily kill her, and it’d be a BLPVIO at this stage to say that he did - but the RSP OP posted says that someone, somewhere killed her. It’s PERFECTLY REASONABLE for OP to thus say she was killed on a talk page without fear of someone edit war reverting their comments, because that’s what the RSP they cited says. Learn the difference between passive and active voice. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thing though, and this is what the courts will decide, is that there is a difference between murder and manslaughter which we should. We can say she was killed, but whether it was intentional or not is still yet to be determined and WP shouldn't be jumping at calling it a murder. Masem (t) 12:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That's certainly a factor. Though I'd note that as yet there has been no inquest, never mind a trial. People have been using a few isolated instances of unqualified use of the word 'murder' to assert that Widdecombe was in fact intentionally killed, despite the fact that sources have been making it clear that this has yet to be determined. Not that we should need sources for that - it is a matter of law. And it matters while there is an individual facing charges. If there is a trial, whether Widdedcombe was in fact intentionally killed at all might be under dispute (note that for some time the death was being treated as not suspicious) and we shouldn't be pre-empting such a possible defence. Far too many people are making too many assumptions regarding things on which they have no knowledge, and drawing conclusions they shouldn't be. Not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but that does not make the opposing view that you removed from the talk page a BLP violation. U-Mos (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I’d argue that the word “murder” is used commonly enough to mean any civil killing without comment on its morality, that we can forgive OP for saying it enough to not repeatedly refactor their comments.

Like if someone says “Murder Nazis” no one is saying “Kill Nazis without justification”, they’re saying “Kill Nazis at their homes with a kitchen knife or something” Snokalok2 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Please take your bizarre analogies somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh you know I’d love to go somewhere else but unfortunately someone decided to open an ANI thread because too many editors disagreed with his refactoring, so now I’m stuck here Snokalok2 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that "murder" has a precise definition in English law, including the requirement for malice aforethought. We should not expand its meaning to include sloppy vernacular use. Narky Blert (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Counterpoint - while Wikipedia does use British English on UK pages, that doesn't mean we are bound by UK definitions on talk pages. That is, the UK legal definition of defamation is effectively just "You criticized someone richer than you" but we're not forced to say "So and so factually defamed so an so" on talk just because one is poorer and the other is richer. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

We're bound by BLP which is significantly stricter than UK defamation law and does not allow stuff which would not be defamation but which harms living persons, even horrible ones, in unacceptable ways. By any definition saying someone committed murder when we have insufficient confirmation they carried out a murder falls into that territory. And as things stand it's easily possible that this suspect may be convicted of something which is not murder, or even not convicted because they lacked the mental capacity for any crime; but for their to be no doubt they are the only person responsible for the killing. And as I noted below, their identity could be revealed, whether after a conviction or with protections still nominally being in place so their identity currently being unknown is irrelevant. And to be clear, any editor who doesn't accept that BLP is imperative and overrides their weird "free speech" dreams is welcome to leave here and go to X or wherever they want to hang out without such strong protections for living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You're deeply misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if, say, Prince Andrew sues an Epstein victim for defamation and wins (very likely in the UK system), we are not forced to say on talk that the Epstein victim defamed Prince Andrew. We could still say "So and so did NOT defame Prince Andrew" on talk, and it wouldn't be a BLPVIO. That is, British court rulings are not taken as the decider of whether the sky is blue or not, they only decide who the state found guilty.

I have no idea what you're going on about here, but that was a lot of words to completely miss that point. Snokalok2 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

None of this is about the suspect. Nobody has even named the suspect nor is anyone, as far as I can tell, saying we should. In that context I actually do think "the victim doesn't come under BLP because she's not alive" is the only reasonable response to what you're saying.

The suspect is the only living person here. The suspect's identity is already protected. I don't get who you even think is the living person that would be protected by not calling this a murder. Loki (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea that BLP doesn't protect living persons from violations of BLP when their identity is protected but they are clearly specific living individuals who's identity may one day be revealed including when protections are still in place is just bizarre. It's definitely not something in any way supported by any part of WP:BLP and I'd suggest any editor who thinks that way at least limit their editing in areas of BLP where this arises since their understanding of BLP is highly flawed. Note it doesn't matter whether editors agree or disagree the comment itself is harmful. Even if editors feel the comment doesn't cause harm and is not a BLP violation, they should still recognise that a identifiable and specific person is still protected under BLP even when their identity is currently protected. Also BDP will definitely apply to a person who died only a few days ago. Again editors may very well feel this comment doesn't violate BLP for the victim and so it's not a BDP issue but they should still recognise that the victim having died a few days ago doesn't mean BLP doesn't apply to them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the name is not reported yet by any news sources, we cannot pretend that certain user groups (what 4chan would used to do) will seek out the name to make sure it is known, even if they are wrong, and that type of name gets drippled into less reliable sourcing as time moves on, so we should never assume that an identity of a suspect of a highly visible crime that is otherwise kept under wraps by RS is completely protected. And thus if we are not careful to assert what the unnamed person on WP has been charged with or what legal status there, and make excessive conclusions beyond what the police and legal experts state, then that's also a problem per BLP. Masem (t) 04:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the name is not reported yet by any news sources, we cannot pretend that certain user groups (what 4chan would used to do) will seek out the name to make sure it is known I mean its already occurring on facebook people are posting images they believe are of the suspect and talking about "social media posts by the suspect" etc. so it probs won't be long before the article is targeted. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

On the original issue:

• The disputed text says that the killing is Not really alleged [murder] anymore. I think this point is wrong (whether there was a murder, a manslaughter, or a killing or death in some other legal category is absolutely not settled).
• The disputed text didn't make any statement about the guilt or innocence of the alleged assailant.
• I don't think AndyTheGrump's point about BLP is completely silly. The material is BLP adjacent, or has BLP implications perhaps. I still think you have to squint pretty hard to see an actual BLP claim about the alleged assailant here. It's at most kind of potentially implied but I don't agree with removal.
• Still, Andy was within rights to revert per WP:BLPREMOVE. I think the people who reverted back should have explained their position when doing so to try and avoid the edit war.
• Andy should then have followed what is written at BLPREMOVE: Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
• Andy came here asking for this: Clearly this violation of policy needs action: at minimum, making it absolutely clear that Wikipedia doesn't determine whether a murder has taken place, the courts do, and more specifically, under no circumstances is it appropriate to assert, or imply, that a suspect - named or otherwise - is guilty of murder prior to conviction. These are outcomes that could be achieved better at WP:BLPN.

If Andy is still of the conviction that a violation of policy took place, I suggest they do the step they skipped: go to WP:BLPN. If that's what they want to do, then this section be closed without sanctions for anyone. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and I didn't see anyone prepared to endorse Andy's removals on the talk page, and that's with everyone agreeing that BLP applies on talk pages. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

In terms of the wider issue, while I don't personally feel that it was necessary to redact it, the comment "Not really alleged anymore" is a borderline BLP violation by UKresearcherTV. While UKresearcherTV can think what they want, we don't give a damn what they think about the crime or perpetrator, any more than we care what I think or any other editor. Therefore their opinion that a minister calling it a murder means it's not alleged any more is irrelevant and unhelpful and not something they should be posting on talk pages. Given it's a borderline BLP violation, I would strongly oppose any action against Andy over redacting that part of UKresearcherTV's comment. I would support action, at a minimum a talk page block but maybe just a topic ban of some sort, for any editor who keeps reinstating the comment. UKresearcherTV should also consider themselves on the thinest of ice and if they continue down their current path, I'd support a broadly construed BLP topic ban. Again, if any editor doesn't want there to be limits on their ability to bring up their own personal opinions about living persons and matters involving them, they should do so somewhere where it's accepted and without our strong BLP protection e.g. X. That our protections apply to any living person no matter how rightfully despised they may be, and they limited what we can say even beyond what is in sources is IMO a key part of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Most reliable sources have treated the death of Ann Widdecombe as a murder and have used that word, without qualification, for at least a week (see for example The Guardian). That is to say, regardless of when or whether someone is tried and convicted of the murder, reliable sources are saying that she was murdered. A BLP violation would be inappropriately connecting the dots and saying that "X murdered Widdecombe" before such an outcome. Now, maybe you read "not really alleged anymore" as saying that. You could also read it as "no, it's a murder, the police are saying so." The Guardian uses both phrasings, depending on context:

• "A 28-year-old man from Rotherham is being held in custody on suspicion of her murder."
• "Over the weekend, Devon and Cornwall officers went to lengths to reassure the public that the alleged murder did not appear to be politically motivated."

BLPN would have been the place to handle this, if something needed to be handled. I think everyone in this discussion has demonstrated awareness of the BLP protections for persons accused of a crime. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources are calling it a murder than arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't is, IMHO, a (rather pernicious) form of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We follow the sources. Full stop. If someone being accused/convicted of a murder was required for something to be considered a murder there wouldn't be so many "unsolved murder" cases. The BLP policy's protections absolutely apply to someone accused of murder. However they do not apply to "this person was murdered". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

While that sounds great in theory, the reality is that not all alleged murders are treated equally. Man, 28, charged with murder of Ann Widdecombe. We're not saying he did it, but apparently we are able to say "Ann Widdecombe was murdered". If we rewind a few years, I can only imagine the uproar that would have occurred after Former MPD Officer Derek Chauvin In Custody, Charged With Murder In George Floyd's Death we had pre-empted the trial and said "George Floyd was murdered" as soon as charges were filed. FDW777 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

McSly's insults

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

---

Dear Team. Please find insults from McSly : "I'm under no obligation to care about your shit". Best Regards. --~2026-40433-21 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

While it might be rude, what you are quoting is not a personal insult. I also note that you said "Please retract your insults now or else I will issue you a warning" , but then posted here before McSly had made any other edit on the project. If there are insults, please provide diffs that highlight this behavior that violates WP:NPA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the OP got indeffed ~2026-31412-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --McSly (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Penningon

Penningon (talk · contribs) is intent on changing infobox images without discussion around the project, the most recent reason, at time of writing, being "this pic look better". Has had several warnings on their talk page. Seasider53 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they have only received two warnings about changing images, with the second being your warning. (Yes, there are three warnings, but the second warning overall was just about repeated reverts and never discussed the images. Also, there are two ClueBot NG discussions, but I am not counting ClueBot NG's revert messages as warnings.)

Penningon, your first warning at the end of June was to stop replacing images and instead move the image elsewhere into the article when you change them. Can you try to explain why you are not moving the image that you are replacing when you make these edits? (Let me know if this question didn't make sense.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

because i see that image look more pretty than the new one, so that why i change the photos back Penningon (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is why you are changing the image. But why are you not moving the older picture to somewhere else in the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

It being "prettier" is subjective and not a reason to change longstanding images, even if they move the existing infobox image elsewhere in the article. And the replacement image is not necessarily newer. Seasider53 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I get that. I am just trying to get an answer to, "Why have you ignored what the first warning told you to do around 18 times this week?" --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

When did changing an image become a matter requiring pre-approval? If reverted they should not edit war and should discuss the matter, and if another editor request you retain old images elsewhere in the article it's good practice to try and follow it. But editors don't need anyone's approval to edit, and there doesn't appear to be any prior consensus I can find on the image at Gavi (footballer). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

i guess i was OCD cause the photo is exactly at the middle so i prefer it Penningon (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

It does seem odd, but Penningon has been reverted 25 times this month already, so there is some issue over the images. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Have editors discussed the matter with Penningon to explain why they have reverted them, or just templated them for something they are allowed to do? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one has explained it. The only thing that I can see that is a potential issue is Pennington continually replacing images without moving them, such as with this edit from four hours ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The only thing that I can see that is a potential issue is Pennington continually replacing images without moving them, such as with this edit from four hours ago. I struggle to see what the issue with this edit is. As far as I know there is no guideline that says that if you replace an image, you should retain the replaced image elsewhere in the article. The instruction on Penningon's talkpage to do that contains no explanation or policy justification, and in this case specifically the two images are similar enough that I don't see any particular value in including both. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I will say that not all of the images have been similar, as can be seen in this edit to Rafael Leão, but I can concede that it isn't a thing that always needs to be done. (Though, I will note that there was a revert on the 19th to move the old image down into the body of the article, so I do believe that there will continue to be friction about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If I include all of the edit summaries of the reverted image edits, there are only a few that include text: Spike 'em's revert at Tyrick Mitchell on the 27th with the text "That picture is of Marc Guehi"; TylerBurden's revert at Erling Haaland on the 7th with the text " Once again, previous image is better as it's a front view of his face"; Vesekskiy's revert on the 7th at Ma Ning (referee) with the text "wrong image"; Seasider53's revert at Erling Haaland on the 10th with the text "Rv - discuss on talk"; User:Ruby Fortnite's revert at Rafael Leão on the 17th with the text "previous image is better".

To note, there is potential edit warring at Ma Ning (referee) and Rafael Leão. For the former, the image has been changed six times with multiple editors involved outside of Pennington since the 7th apparently due to a dispute over who this person is. For the latter, the image has been changed five times with three of them being Pennington since the 16th with Pennington second change there having the edit summary, "i put this image cause i'm wait someone to cropped it", which indicates to me that this isn't a change that should be occurring. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds to me that they're new and don't understand how to do things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this and will add that there is a possible language barrier. If you are implying that this didn't need to come here, then that is correct to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned: the revert I did was when Pennington repeated a previously reversed change to use a mislabeled photo (which has now been renamed). I don't believe they could have properly reviewed the change as it is clear to anyone who knows the players concerned that the photo was wrong. However, once I did revert, they did not try the change again. Spike 'em (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

guys, i just wanted to say that i changed photos because the old pic is more better, and for the photos of Rafael Leão, i just put there and wait for someone to crop the photo close to his face, and not vandalism as you guys has thought before Penningon (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are committing any vandalism. (In fact, I don't think anyone has said that there has been vandalism.) My assessment is that you might be ignoring the messages on your talk page, which isn't that big of a deal with what has been said here (being that the majority of those messages haven't explained anything policy related or other justifications as specifically noted by Caeciliusinhorto), but also have a concerning amount of reverted edits with the majority of them being the image changes and text changes that multiple editors have said was unsourced in the edit summary. I was hoping to resolve the image changes here since it was brought here, but I guess there isn't anything to resolve there. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I should have mentioned one more thing. When you want to crop an image, you should use either {{CSS image crop}} or {{Easy CSS image crop}} with my recommendation being the Easy version. If you need assistance in the future with either template, see either the Help Desk or the Teahouse. (To add, I don't believe we have a template to flag an image for cropping though and just putting it on the article for someone else to crop might not be clear to others.) --Super Goku V (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

However, once I did revert, they did not try the change again. That is correct, hence the "multiple editors involved outside of Pennington" part, but I guess that wasn't clear enough. Also, thank you for your efforts to fix the image issue there. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

IranScribe0 and unreliable sources in Portal:Current events

IranScribe0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have talked to them 20 days ago on their talk page. They keep doing this, they do not respond and there are other related matters on the talk page they do not respond to. Currently most of the pages in Portal:Current events are full of those unreliable sources again. It is not just this user adding these sources, which is also why I sought help on the reliable sources noticeboard 10 days ago.

Diffs: 1364712257, 1364555324, 1364512116, 1364554380. There are more if you dig. NetSysFire (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The section about AA in 2023 states "The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status". And there are other secondary sources covering Iranian attacks on Gulf countries. Second, regarding diff 1364712257, the report that Iran attacked Saudi Arabia originated with a journalist from Axios and I replaced the AA source with Financial Times in this diff. IranScribe0 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If there are secondary, more reliable sources, just use those instead of AA in the future. If it's a big enough event to get on the portal, then it's probably big enough to have coverage from reliable news orgs. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Coordinated TAs on 2026 in film

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

---

• 2026 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • ~2026-40321-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-40157-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-39984-62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-39977-78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-39841-77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-39551-92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-39324-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These TAs (likely coordinated) has been repeatedly adding the same content with a source that doesn't confirm their addition despite reverts. They have also been repeatedly removing the {{failed verification}} tag from it. Vestrian24Bio 16:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the most recent TA, and semi protected the article. Mfield (Oi!) 16:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Danners430

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

---

This user is wrongfully accusing me of vandalism AIV on the Union Pacific 844 article. All I was doing was correcting information to what the sources directly says in the article and then he just started randomly accusing me of vandalism after I showed him TWICE on what the sources directly says in the article, yet he is still refusing to cooperate with me when I messaged him. Now he says I’m editing warring on his talk page but all I was doing is trying to reason with him respectfully. Yet he still refuses to listen. ~2026-38867-09 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danners430&diff=prev&oldid=1364825249
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Pacific_844&diff=prev&oldid=1364819937
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Pacific_844&diff=next&oldid=1364820458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38867-09 (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Please note that this TA is now blocked indefinitely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

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

LightningThrower

LightningThrower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) While doing WP:WCW work I ran across this edit adding a citation and alternate name to a disambig page. As is normal when I come across a bad edit like that I looked into his contributions to see if this was a one-off or if it was a pattern of behavior. I found it was a pattern and had to revert many of his recent edits as they were unconstructive. I also added him to my watchlist automatically through Twinkle (which I do so I can recheck on editors who appear problematic, it's set for 7 days default). He then went on to revert several of the reverts I had made (many of which got reverted again by other editors for being unconstructive). His unconstructive edits at that point appeared to be pure vandalism. They have since engaged in behavior that appears to be hounding. While this page could have been found through the link on my user page, I have no reason to believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quetta West District could be found any way but through my edits to the main article. He has now resorted to attacks at my talk page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

LightningThrower seems to have added a "this editor is opposed to twinkle abuse" after Jerod Lycett reverted the user's edits ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @~2026-38678-64.

I am opposed to WP:TWINKLEABUSE, which Jerod is doing. Do you have an issue with me supporting a guideline?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

i've seen better attempts at sealioning ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-38678-64,

Sealioning? What's your point man??? This guy's trying to get my account deleted, and I don't think I did anything wrong to deserve that. Best believe I will be defending myself!

If there is a place to have a lengthy discussion, it's right here. As far as I can tell, it is not evident that he is in the right, and I have multiple arguments to use against him (and I in fact was considering reporting him to the administration himself, except he did it first, putting me on the defensive). This is not sealioning at all. I was brought here, he began this conversation, he is the one who put a vandal template on my talk page first, he is the one who began all hostile actions first. Not me.

What I am doing is pretty much the opposite of sealioning. This guy Jerod is the proverbial "sealion" in my house bothering me, and I just want to get back to improving Wikipedia. If there is a way that I am doing it wrong, you can let me know respectfully... Don't call me a vandal and try to get me kicked off the site.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not possible to delete accounts on Wikipedia so it's incredibly unlikely an experienced editor is trying to get something which they almost definitely know is impossible. Nil Einne (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Nil Einne.

Really? Thanks for telling me! So what is their goal? Regardless of whether its deleting my account or a ban, I don't think its justified but thanks for telling me!

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The thing is blocks are never supposed to be punitive, they're always meant to be preventative and experienced editors should know this. Likewise blocks are almost never permanent. An indefinite block is only supposed to last until it's no longer needed. So even if Jerod Lycett does feel you should be blocked it's only because and until you stop any problematic behaviour. As a new editor there's clearly a lot you don't understand hence why you're making such basic mistakes. If instead of getting high and mighty when challenged you engaged with the more experienced editors who have warned you etc you could have likely avoided most problems and have little risk of being blocked. If you had done that when you came to ANI that would have been a far more effective strategy to avoid being blocked. If you are blocked you almost always can be unblocked by engaging and learning rather than by acting and talking like you know everything about how stuff works around here when you clearly don't. I'm not denying mistakes were made by others who've engaged with you e.g. I agree the vandalism templates were uncalled for. But you need to concentrate on your role in this and how your can improve. Nil Einne (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Nil Einne.

Thanks for the advice. I agree with you. I did actually try to respectfully engage with Jerod on his talk page before he accused me of any vandalism, but I didn't get a response. Regardless, I agree and am willing to make an effort to be nicer and avoid any pretentious or condescending speech. I am actively trying to engage with Jerod and learn from him through edit summaries.

In that article, I read his summary saying that the pages in the "See also" section were already linked. Because of this, I changed the links in the "See also" section to related articles that weren't linked in the article.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You state you attempted to engage, but it was hours after I had been active. You waited a few hours and then hours before I became active again immediately took to reverting pages.

• My last edit before sleeping 2026-07-17T09:21:48
• Your talk page post 2026-07-17T13:53:10
• When you began reverting instead of discussing 2026-07-17T15:41:39
• When I woke up to see your reversion and reverted it, assuming at that point you were WP:NOTHERE and a vandal 2026-07-17T19:10:16

Also, not a him. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, fine, let's say mistakes were made by LightningThrower, and I think it's safe to assume, based on his comments, he wants to learn from them.

Would you admit you made a mistake with your assumption of him being "WP:NOTHERE"? And why would you even make the assumption without reviewing the rest of someone's history (you already likely knew that person had created several useful articles to the encyclopedia before this, you being someone changing them) Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I did review his history. He has displayed:

• General pattern of disruptive behavior
• Dishonest and gaming behaviors
• Little or no interest in working collaboratively

Those are all listed there. I suggest reading what is posted rather than reacting. You seem to have a bias towards article creation as a metric. They also created an article that is not useful which is why I had to put it up for discussion. The reason I asked for this ANI is because of the overall behavior. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

I tried communicating with you on your talk age to no response.

I have updated Miramar Regional Park, and would recommend that you take a look at it and see if you change your mind.

I am here to work collaboratively. I found it hard to do that when faced with no replies.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jerodlycett.

You went through my edit history, and reverted multiple of my edits on unrelated articles.

I tried asking you to stop nicely or explain your edits earlier on your talk page, and you didn't respond. You are reverting my good faith edits, sometimes without even giving an edit summary, in clear violation of WP:TWINKLEABUSE.

You then proceed to attack my talk page, placing vandalism tags for my good faith edits. This is simply not understanding the concept of WP:Vandalism.

Everything that you have accused me of doing, you did first to me and this is not an isolated incident. From what I see, you WikiHound other editors consistently with little to no regard for edit summaries.

You left incorrectly tagged vandalism templates on my user page, so I put templates on your page kindly allowing you to see that you made a mistake.

As is normal when I come across a bad edit like the templating above, I looked into your contributions to see if this was a one-off or if it was a pattern of behavior. I found it was a pattern and had to several many of his recent edits as they were unconstructive.

This is not an attack, and if anything, you have committed WP:TWINKLEABUSE and your Twinkle usage should be taken away.

You even went to the point of incorrectly starting a deletion discussion on a clearly, obviously, undisputably significant article (see Miramar Regional Park).

You appear to show a pattern of this by incorrectly attempting to begin a deletion discussion on Quetta West District. This is clearly article worthy, as it is a full district of Pakistan. Articles shouldn't be put for deletion for failing GNG due to a lack of research on the article, but rather, based off of the sources and room for expansion.

As for Quetta West District: as an expert on the topic, with many connections to the administration of the region, who understands the organization of the Wikipedia articles on that topic, and of the bureaucracy of the region itself, I was concerned about your edits and that you may be making unconstructive edits. And lo and behold I found an unconstructive edit you made. Every district in Pakistan has its own article, just like every county in the United States. Objectively, it deserved to be its own article, and regardless of if you somehow succeed in deleting it, someone will add it right back.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, editable by everyone (not just you). Users, regardless of their edit counts or knowledge of policies, can edit the encyclopedia in an effort to improve it, and you have to accept that as a fact.

Additionally, after reverting, you must give a detailed reason on the talk page of the article, instead of putting vandalism templates on their user pages.

If you aren't satisfied, we can have a civil discussion on the talk page.

You have not shown me (or other editors, from what I can tell) this type of respect.

Luckily for you, I will continue to show respect to you, but it's not unreasonable to expect little to no respect from other editors.

Wikipedians often talk about the lessening quantity of editors and the lack of editors to help them out. A major reason for this is the hostility of more established Wikipedians. See the following:

This behavior is not what Wikipedia needs right now. Instead of arguing here, we could be contributing to the encyclopedia.

You have written 2 articles, despite having well over 25,000 edits. This isn't meant as an insult or to be mean, but consider contributing by adding stuff, not just taking away information.

Finally, your entire point for putting me on the Noticeboard is void, as per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE.

Don't be surprised if I put you on the noticeboard afterwards.

Thank you, -- LightningThrower (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm unaware of putting that article up for AfD. Can you show me where I did so?

I'd also not count the ONRAC disambig page as created by me. I had created it as a redirect. So probably just the one article counts as created by me. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett they're probably talking about the 2 edits you did to Quetta West District and the 1 edit you made to its talk page ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

you might also be interested in this user page that they made which is about criticizing you without naming names, this might also be where they originally talked about their misconception of you doing starting an AfD at Quetta West District, hell it even speaks of when you added a stub to the article ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

the thing that takes the cake though, is this diff that makes the overall reply less hostile (although, by not that much) ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-38678-64.

I'm sorry, but I was just trying to be respectful. I wrote that in anger and it was my fault.

By the way, as a respectful question, why are you interested in this case? You went as far as to look into my history and deep into my userpage, despite you seeming to have no relation to the case itself. Why did the case interest you? Of course, you have the right to be interested, and I am not contesting that you can be a part of the discussion, it just seems strange to me. Did I do something at some point?

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

according to WP:SEALION, Sealioning is a particular form of civil POV-pushing in discussions, with some distinctive characteristics [...] They politely feign a desire to simply understand the issue, while asking question after question, ignoring the substance of previous replies in order to raise yet another question ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-38678-64:.

You just ignored my question earlier yourself! Come on man. I did not even ignore a single inkling of substance in previous replies. I addressed every possible argument and fully stated my case.

To me, it barely seems like you read my side or tried to understand it. You are presuming guilt.

I'll repeat my earlier question. Respectfully, what is your interest in butting in to this discussion? What interested you about this case? What made you go into the deep subpages of my User Profile to find things to try to report?

Once again, you are allowed to do all of that, I just want to understand why...

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-38678-64: You have burning questions to ask on the sockpuppet investigation page, and you can't answer some basic questions on why you are interested in this? Abbasi786786 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-38678-64.

Sorry if it appeared that way, but this article was not related to or targeted at Jerod. As far as I know, Jerod hasn't done anything remotely similar to this.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jerodlycett.

That's my mistake, Jerod, to state that you were the user who put that article up for deletion. I wrongly assumed you had put the article up for deletion. However, I do sincerely believe that the article should not be deleted, and I am willing to have a discussion about that. In any case, I don't think it is too much of a problem that I did that. I did not even directly oppose anything you did there, and my discussion is with other people, even if the article is something you edited. Therefore, I don't see the issue with having discussion on that topic.

Furthermore, I do apologize for any unconstructive edits I made in the past, and am willing to make an effort to learn more about the rules of Wikipedia to do things the right way. And if I make mistakes, be sure to let me know on the talk pages of the articles described, and describe your issues with my edits that you have reverted. If we have a disagreement, it should be resolved through respectful discussion and the disagreement should not be resolved through revert warring. Once again, I am open to new ideas and to learn how to do things better.

This all stemmed from me not being able to understand your edit summaries (which were sometimes non-existent) and taking your reverts as hounding, which I did not appreciate (especially since it seemed that you had reverted nearly all of my recent edits, which I thought were constructive and improved Wikipedia).

If you agree, I would like to resolve the discussion and cease hostilities, and if you agree to that, I will then not be opposing you again in this regard. -- 05:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC) LightningThrower (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the number of warning you had from me and others, and the behavior you have shown even here in this thread, I feel that bringing your behavior before the admins is the appropriate action to take. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jerodlycett.

I don't know who the others (who have given me warnings) you are referring to are (as far as I can tell, you are the only person who has opposed me or given a warning), and am still open to discussion. You ignored my questions to you above anyway. What was wrong with what I did opposing the West Quetta District deletion? I didn't hound you or oppose you. I didn't even do anything on the same page as you, and you have not taken any stance whatsoever or done anything related to the deletion article about that. Am I not allowed to browse at all? If that's the case, my bad, but I had no idea.

Also, what behaviors have I shown here in this thread? Please let me know, since I am interested in fixing my mistakes and improving as an editor overall. I still do not believe I have vandalized Wikipedia or done anything to do so in any way, shape, or form. I have done nothing to obstruct or defeat Wikipedia's purpose whatsoever (which is the actual definition of vandalism). What does harm the project of Wikipedia is reverting en masse without discussion. You have not addressed my response to you in that regard, and if you have something to say on that topic, let me know so that I can learn. You can also let me know about anything I talked about above, since neither you nor the other user here have addressed any of the arguments.

And as a new user, naturally I'm going to be frustrated when you use all these tracking tools to revert my edits en masse, when I felt you had not given adequate justification. This is in violation of WP:BITE in the lack of explanations I was receiving. I shouldn't even have to know all these policies and names as a new editor with simple intentions. Now that I'm being attacked by Jerod, I am quickly learning, though.

Finally, just a friendly reminder that WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE exists.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

You could do with dropping the sanctimonious condescension, for a start. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's important to mention that Jerod has shown nothing but sanctimonious condescending since Lightning began interacting with him, and this being on issues that he isn't even correct on, for the most part. Abbasi786786 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

I will, sorry if I had such condescension earlier. Thanks. LightningThrower (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have taken a detailed look at this case, and to me it is clear that the user LightningThrower has not committed any vandalism (and should never have been accused of such). Based on the edits the user has made, it also seems to be clear to me that he is editing with good intentions. I also do not see any serious evidence of WikiHounding / harassment by LightningThrower, involving any incivility either. Based on a look through LightningThrower's talk page (including the history), the user Jerod Lycett has been a direct critic of him in three of the four incidents available, with the other one having quickly been resolved.

The first direct accusation of vandalism to LightningThrower at this edit linked here. It occurred at 19:10 on 17 July, and it immediately threatens a blocking in the first sentence. What immediately preceded that, and the edit that Jerod Lycett is calling vandalism, is this edit linked here, where LightningThrower is reverting Jerod Lycett's removal of a "See Also" section. Looking through the descriptions of the edit summaries, I don't see any world where that even warrants an accusation of vandalism, especially considering that LightningThrower entirely wrote that article himself. Two hours later, Jerod Lycett accused the user LightningThrower of vandalism again for this edit linked here of LightningThrower restoring his previous version of the page after Jerod Lycett's reversion, without a sufficient edit summary (the very curt "Revert to proper format" without any links is not enough to educate a new user about the date-month formats). On the very same page, the infobox date is still not on the proper format, and it seems to me as though LightningThrower was trying to keep consistency between the userbox and the article text. The fact that Jerod Lycett did not even attempt to correct the other error of the same nature plainly in view on the very small article, shows that the behavior was targeted, and not in good faith. This unjustified accusation itself by Jerod Lycett accompanied a stronger message threatening a block on LightningThrower.

Jerod Lycett also attempted to delete a stub article LightningThrower had created, which was, at the time, still being constructed: Miramar Regional Park. This deletion goes against WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. At this point, it is understandable for a new editor like LightningThrower to be bothered with Jerod following him around, reverting his work (none of which qualifies as vandalism and all seem to be legitimate efforts to improve the encyclopedia, even if a minority of these were misguided), and not providing adequate explanations.

To me, this looks more to be an abuse of power and, ironically, WikiHounding behavior, by Jerod Lycett (and not even for justified reasons, as a lot of these specific cases Jerod has tried to make have been shut down by other Wikipedians). I would suggest sanctions on that user (Jerod Lycett) instead of LightningThrower, possibly a temporary block from Twinkle privileges, or being able to access other user's talk pages, notwithstanding an apology for his misuse of the application. Another possibility (and one that I prefer) is an administrative warning given to Jerod Lycett for him repeatedly escalating the dispute. The user also could be blocked from interaction with the user LightningThrower. As for Jerod Lycett, a better way to approach this would have been through proper education to the user, showing patience to new editors unfamiliar with established policies, and not overloading them with these types of accusations. Abbasi786786 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you aware of what a WP:MEATPUPPET is? Your actions make it appear as though you are one.

• Old revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miramar Regional Park
• Old revision of Talk:Mosquito

Also, you failed to miss the prior notice and caution there in the edit you linked. Given that LightningThrower had already been reverted not once but twice at that point, and was reverting to force their change instead of WP:BRDDISCUSSing, it would count as vandalism. You don't need a further edit summary than the one provided by Twinkle when reverting vandalism.

It is not on me to educate someone about WP:DATETIES especially if they fail to read the literal words {{Use dmy dates}} at the top of the article they're editing. If you want to fix the infobox, go right ahead.

As for the Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates I used? They're standard and follow an order. First {{Uw-disruptive1}}, then with the continued disruptive edits after that was given {{Uw-disruptive2}}. At that point the disruptive reverting began, which constitutes vandalism and so the level three was {{Uw-vandalism3}}. However, {{Uw-disruptive3}} also states about blocking. Given the continued vandalism after that warning a final warning was provided by {{Uw-vandalism4}}.

As for the nomination, I'm not the only one who thinks it fails notability. You can discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miramar Regional Park, but I cannot find anything to support it after WP:BEFORE.

I also don't know where you get the idea that other editors don't agree with me.

I was also not the first to caution them against their disruptive behavior

• Old revision of User talk:LightningThrower

I hope this helps clarify things for you. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a "meatpuppet". I am the brother of the editor LightningThrower, who lives in the same household as him, and he told me about these disputes he was in. We happen to agree on these topics, which is why I chose to promote the viewpoint in those cases (I await your response to my argument on Miramar Regional Park). We share interest in many of the same topics as well, as would be expected. However, we also use Wikipedia for different reasons, and most of our edits are not related to the same topics as the other.

I fail to see what rules we have broken by collaborating in this manner. Neither of us are single-purpose users (he does not have an account to support me (I don't think he has ever done this), and I do not only have an account to support him). The single-purpose account is one of the qualifiers of being a meatpuppet, which I believe exonerates us from being "meatpuppets".

As far as the other problems with meatpuppeting, being changing consensus or artificially generating it: the truth is that we both are only making our own arguments that we believe to be true. We aren't trying to distort the discussion or anything, we are two people who both want to promote the same viewpoint (similar to your buddy up above whose username starts with "2026"), and are trying to do so. If there is an issue with that, let me know so we can discuss it.

As for the rest of your argument, I don't really care too much about it. You mentioned that "I was also not the first to caution them against their disruptive behavior". I had already mentioned that in my initial argument in detail. There were four sections placed on his talk page, three of them being by you. The other user to placed the first message, had already had a quick resolution to their minor "dispute". On top of this, for all these other editors you bring up who had an issue with him (and it shows some dishonesty to have them as separate links when you are linking to the same editor), they also have reached resolutions, with LightningThrower quitting to add some of the edits he wanted to add, after he was informed the reasons not to. This occurred in every single case (of which there were several, some of which you have linked and some of which you have not), except the case with you.

Of all the editors LightningThrower interacted with on this site, you are the only one who took it personally, beginning a vendetta against him, making multiple mistakes along the way (which I believe we have outlined already), and not showing any reflection to how your behavior has been out of line (while LightningThrower has been apologetic multiple times, and has shown that he wants to improve and get better). You do have a history of doing this, so I'm not surprised (as in right here, which this case I believe to be identical to the LightningThrower case, except he didn't defend himself so hard, which honestly, we probably should have done as well, just letting the administrators work and exonerate the user). It's our mistake.

I still do not believe you were justified in your behavior in calling LightningThrower's edits vandalism, going so far as to bring something here for the "crime" of making an edit not opposing you on a the talk page of an article which you edited the main page of. And I guess he "attacked" you on your talk page (which is just doing what you did to him, back to you, when you refused to discuss changes with him and he was actively trying to discuss his changes with you). In Wikipedia, there are no superior editors to each other, and you are not so much superior to him that you can do something to him and he can't do it right back (with the proper basis, which I believe was there in these cases).

I would like an administrator to take over from here and make a judgement on this standing (and I wish one got involved a long time ago, I can see you are taking care of the cases around this, why not this one?). To an administrator, please make sure to factor in the fact that LightningThrower is clearly "here to improve the encyclopedia", based on the fact that he even has made several articles about obscure species, and just looking at his body of work across the whole website (it's honestly crazy you even accused him of that, a clear look through his edit history should be enough to dispel that notion).

Finally, I want to add, that any errors LightningThrower or I might have made (which are definitely being blown out of proportion by Jerod Lycett), please let us know and we will do our best to fix them. Both of us do in fact want to positively contribute to Wikipedia, so in cases we were mistaken. In any cases either of us might have been rude (which I honestly don't think occurred, all of these other guys including that guy with who called LightningThrower "sealioning" having been more rude to us than us back), please overlook it as being our mistakes, and being in the heat of the moment. I am eager for the case to end, whatever sanctions have to placed on us, we are willing to learn and review whatever rules are in place and move on.-- Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not a "meatpuppet". I am the brother of the editor LightningThrower, who lives in the same household as him, and he told me about these disputes he was in.

It's complicated: normally that you describe would mean a "Stealth Off-Wiki Canvassing'", but some people also could qualify it as "Meatpuppetry". ~2026-40770-12 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you expect us to formally make posts on each others' talk pages every time we discuss something in person? That's just unreasonable. If there's an actual policy backing that up I'm fine with it, but I don't think there is one. On top of this, we do not always agree. I have not backed up LightningThrower in many cases, that I disagree with him about. We also cannot be "puppets" by definition of a puppet being someone whose purpose is to back someone else up (mentioned on the Meatpuppet page).

To top it off, we haven't been disruptive to any discussions, and both are actively making new arguments instead of repeating the same thing (with the goal to actually come to a resolution and improve the encyclopedia) so any punishment seems moot. Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Formally make posts on each others' talk pages every time we discuss something in person would only make it an open canvassing, instead of a stealth one; that is technically better indeed. For people, who would qualify it as meatpuppetry it, likely, wouldn't change anything, because they're seemingly already misapplying it.

I never said anything about disruption here; just you seems to engage in the "Clevinger defense", famous for being successful and reliable. ~2026-40770-12 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Clevinger defense, and trying to look it up, can't find anything about it. What is it?

As for the rest of your comment, I know you didn't say anything about disruption, and am not accusing you of saying anything regarding that.

I just wanted to make it clear to any passing-by administrators that there wasn't disruption in these certain arguments (which are linked: and ). The contents of the arguments in question (which matters more than the users behind them), could just be normal arguments that could have been made by two different users who agree with one another, which is the way I believe it should be seen. Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

"Clevinger defense" is when one is trying to say that they couldn't be charged with a something, they are about to be charged, because they could point in some law/rules that it is not applicable in their case in fact. While in fact they are could be charged with anything, no matter if they could point on something contradicting it in an actual law/rules or not; this approach could only enrage "judges" more.

So your lines about "we're doing this and that, it is not meatpuppetry because guidelines saying so, etc" is reminded me about it; doesn't matter that guidelines are actually saying, matter how people who could actually do something would interpret them. ~2026-40770-12 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Having taken a look at WP:FAMILY I see the statement "When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely connected accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account." I am fine with doing this from now on, and will be doing so from now on. I shall state my connection with LightningThrower in all of these cases. Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

Just as a general note to anyone, especially an admin that is reading this, if there seems to be a misunderstanding of the rules or a mistake here, please just tell us. We follow the rules of Wikipedia.

Thanks. LightningThrower (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This might warrant a look by a CU. The Editor Interaction Analyzer suggests something hinky is going on, though it might be meat rather than sock. Grandpallama (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Grandpallama.

Sorry, just woke up. @Abbasi786786 and I are two different people. We share the same house and internet connection. Most of the overlap occurred due to legitimate, shared interests. Sometimes, though, I told him about edits I made, which coincidentally became disputes. I just want to clarify that those weren't planned. Everything that we say are our own legitimate opinions on topics, but I do see that this looks highly suspicious. It could even look like sockpuppeting due to the shared connection.

In case you don't believe me, a vast majority of our edits are on very different topics. I am listing three examples below.

• Climate Change in Vermont
• Oolite
• Marseille

I am sorry for any disruption this caused to Wikipedia.

I am going to voluntarily impose an interaction ban between us, and we will not vote on the same deletion discussions or other discussions like this one.

Thanks, -- LightningThrower (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not think there should be an interaction ban.

A lot of these articles that you edits, I have opinions about, independent of you, and have been editing and trying to improve long before you made an account. I don't want to not be allowed to edit these same articles (for example stuff like Miramar Regional Park, involving a park in my hometown, or the different Districts of Pakistan articles, which I have made hundreds of maps regarding).

If there's a rule against that, someone can let me know. Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Repeating the quote I made above:

Having taken a look at WP:FAMILY I see the statement "When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely connected accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account." I am fine with doing this from now on, and will be doing so from now on. I shall state my connection with LightningThrower in all of these cases.

@Grandpallama you might be interested in lightning's first edit ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that when I was investigating. I didn't call it out at the SPI, but you might consider adding it there. Grandpallama (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

already done~2026-38678-64 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment Probably time to close this. Jerod, at worst, stuck their hand into a sock drawer and, at best, got tag-teamed by meatpuppets who then thought it would be cool to hound Jerod at their talkpage. Whatever the outcome of this report will be, it's probably going to decided at the SPI I just filed. For the record, assuming I take the admissions in this thread at face value, pretending to be an uninvolved editor so that one can back up a sibling and call for sanctions against the other party is pretty deep into indef territory. Grandpallama (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased possible ways the discussion could be framed, showing no regard for our side of the story, and without a single inkling of assumption for good faith. No mention whatsoever of the hounding Jerod did to LightningThrower, the ignoring Jerod did of LightningThrower's valid questions on his talk page, the lack of regard he shows to new users, his abuse of power to try to delete articles valid to be on the website, or improper use of vandalism tools. Administrators who read this, assume good faith from us and do not take Grandpallama or Jerod's comments at face value. Check for yourselves, look into our edit histories, and see if you see people who are trying to add to the site or vandalize the site... Abbasi786786 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that there's an our side of the story (emphasis mine) is why you no longer merit a single inkling of assumption for good faith. You squandered that the moment you misled the community. Again, you are in blockable territory. Grandpallama (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

So is WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE not a thing anymore? I can fix my behavior and pledge to state my connections, since I (neither I or my brother) previously wasn't aware of the rules regarding WP:FAMILY.

Everyone merits the assumption of good faith, and that assumption was removed from LightningThrower almost the very second he began interactions with Jerod. The "vandalism" that began this conversation isn't even being mentioned by anyone anymore, since there was little to no basis for that claim.

As another comment, is there anything I can do to regain that assumption of good faith? I still am interested in being a part of Wikipedia. I will rectify any behavior you'd like me to, and based on my previous contributions to the website, I have been an immensely positive contributor here for over six years. I believe my brother also has been a positive contributor, but there's no questioning my history. Just look at my Wikimedia Commons upload list, with graphics having received tens of millions of views in totality. Abbasi786786 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You'll find that WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE is a thing too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

On that page: "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved."

Have actions not ceased and conduct issues not been resolved yet? He has not been making edits for a while now, and has been extremely apologetic. Myself, I think that makes it clear repetition is unlikely.

And if not, what would you like to see occur to fix that? A situation without possibility of rehabilitation is a situation where the enforcement of bans and blocks is purely punitive. Abbasi786786 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

We already said we have stopped.

Thanks. LightningThrower (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett by my count, that's 2 remarkably similar arguments in what, 30 minutes? i think you'd be better off by not engaging them like i'm doing ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

"Not engaging them like I'm doing"

At minimum, you've made 28 comments (out of 256 edits total) regarding this incident (beginning 13 minutes after the notice was made), over another user's talk page (@Nil Einne) in an effort to try to influence that user, my sockpuppet investigation page, and here. You're not engaging with our arguments at all, but you still are constantly advocating against us. Is there a reason it interests you this much? Abbasi786786 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

strike that, rule of three ~2026-38678-64 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Name calling and Edit warring

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

---

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

, calling names due to edit warring message after warning this user they were part of an edit war on the Electric Bloom boom page. Clearly not here to be useful as they are adding unreliable sources to the page. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

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

KingOliver7 persistent unsourced additions despite repeated warnings from multiple editors

KingOliver7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account created on April 7, 2026 (~3.5 months ago, 1,343 edits). I'm requesting a review of a persistent pattern, spanning the account's entire history to the present day, of adding unsourced content to articles, repeatedly reverted and warned by at least eight different editors for being unsourced.

Selected incidents from edits (not exhaustive):

Date	Article	Reverting editor	Comment
2026-04-08	Yubaraj Dulal	AntiDionysius	"Unsourced" (tagged "possible unreferenced addition to BLP"). DIFF
2026-04-09	Republic of Anguilla	Busandtrainfannorthwestgeography	"Unsourced again please stop otherwise consequences will come." DIFF DIFF DIFF
2026-04-10	United Baltic Duchy	Jähmefyysikko	"Unsourced". DIFF
2026-05-28	Hatay State	GuesanLoyalist	Reverted citing WP:NOR, requested inline citations. DIFF
2026-07-01	Tulsi Gabbard	LordCollaboration	"Please include a source." DIFF
2026-07-04	Leader of the House of Commons	10mmsocket	Reverted, no sources. DIFF
2026-07-04	Dilton Marsh	Wire723	"unsourced, reads like AI output". DIFF
2026-07-14	Military of the Falkland Islands	Dormskirk	Uncited new section: DIFF
2026-07-18	United States Semiquincentennial Commission	Wikipedian-in-Waiting (me)	Unsourced list, included a dead person as current member. DIFF

Formal warnings on user's Talk page:

• uw-unsourced1 and uw-unsourced2 (April)
• uw-ai1, LLM-suspected content (June 4)
• uw-unsourced3 (July 1)
• uw-unsourced4 "may be blocked without further warning" (July 14)

Repeated feedback via new articles: 39 pages created, 6 already deleted; several AfC drafts declined repeatedly for lack of sourcing (for example, Draft:Vice President of Nauru x2, Draft:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nauru) x3). Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nauru) itself was speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G15 for apparent unreviewed AI-generated content.

The pattern has continued unchanged after the July 14 final warning. I initially reported this to WP:AIV and was redirected here by Rsjaffe.

Requesting admin review of this account, given that warnings from multiple editors over 3.5 months have not changed the editor's behavior. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would like to add that after I requested a CSD for Draft:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nauru) due to it being a recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion. Despite participating in that AFD (and the page previously being deleted twice before the AFD, and once again after being recreated after the AFD close deletion), KingOliver7 told me can you please provide evidence of this by June 8 2026, if you fail to then I may need to report you, thank you. . Both me and @Epicgenius provided said evidence, and received no response. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Oof. Setting arbitrary deadlines for other editors to WP:SATISFY your concerns with a threat to report if they don't... not good, irrespective of the underlying behaviour. Which on its own warrants some action, this person is creating too much of a time sink for other editors to be left to their own devices. I don't think a time-limited block (2 weeks? A month?) is unwarranted by the scale of the disruption, and would serve as a more serious final warning that they need to change what they're doing if they want to participate here. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga The arbitrary deadlines isn't a one-off thing (albeit they aren't threatening a block here) . EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Point taken. Assuming you're saying is that my suggestion of a time-limited block is insufficient - well I generally am pretty reluctant to endorse going straight to indefinite site bans for newish editors, though in this case I think such a ban would be better than nothing at all. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga They have been warned several times and have ignored those warnings (even now, they are still editing while not addressing this ANI thread). They have been repeatedly recreating their own deleted articles and have been repeatedly adding unsourced content. In fact, after being warned for unsourced content, they said I'm just saying this, but you could of added one for me, because Wikipedia is about helping and expanding Wikipedia pages and helping other editors. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

All that's disruptive and needs to be stopped, I agree. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've encountered some of these pages on Special:NewPagesFeed, and I may have in fact nominated one or two for CSD. They all seemed to not meet WP:GNG. Given that this is part of a long-term pattern which the editor has been warned about, a general ban is in order. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Additionally it may be worthwhile to go through the editor's edit history and do some reversions. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked from article space - that will allow him to add references to his drafts and to propose them on article talk with the {{Edit partially-blocked}} template. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What the actual hell is going on?

• ~2026-40471-04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The last minutes of me were me literally brawling with this TA. The TA for some reason started G10-tagging my user talk page, said various personal attacks on their talk page, and literally every admin is a bit too lazy for ~2026-40471-04's request. Also revoke TPA and email. – SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 23:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

They’re blocked Beyhive Navy 🐝🪖 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, plain AIV-worthy harassment. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Higstudios3333 (talk · contribs) is behind this and there is a sock Lofty abysx Beyhive Navy 🐝🪖👸🏽 (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion Guess who’s back ~2026-40474-34 (talk · contribs) Beyhive Navy 🐝🪖 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Account is likely is doing sockpuppetry under Higstudios3333 (talk · contribs) based on evidence. Has disgusting and vulgar history like the account I mentioned. Beyoncé/Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 16:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And now they have hopped into another account called ~2026-40474-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Literally the same behaviour as the last one. Please block them. – SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 23:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Have blocked them, and protected your talk. Mfield (Oi!) 23:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

And taken other measures. Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Acroterion Can we undo this IP block? Whatever it did blocked me from using my cell phone's hot spot. I understand that hotspot IPs are often shared, and this particular anon IP must be using the same satellite. Regardless, my house internet is spotty because I live in a rural area, and my iphone hotspot is my reliable internet connection. This block has now prevented me from working as I normally do on wikipedia. Is there some other way to handle this anon IP user, because the block does impact me.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Modified it a little so you should be able to edit through it, but they can't create any new TAs for a while. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I can not now edit on my cell. I appreciate the modification.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume that was meant to be "now." In any case I've adjusted a little more, since other editors were caught - too much collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're collateral damage in an IP block, you can apply for WP:EXEMPT. Narky Blert (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:IPEC, it can even be granted without a request. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That was how I got it, the first time I was caught in a glock by a steward who never responded to an email (in 2018). The third admin who tried to help knew about it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Better yet would be an IP block provision that allows editing by named accounts, but not by TAs. I think that may be an unconsidered consequence of the shift to "accounts", Before, IPs just couldn't edit through blocks. Now they can. We can block account creation to stop new TAs, but an existing TA series can still edit. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

No, an IP softblock applies to any TAs on that IP; it is only 'logged in' editors (i.e., regular accounts) who are able to edit. CoconutOctopus talk 14:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the interface could be amended to be a little more verbose about that distinction. In any case, I modified the block as soon as problems were noted. The LTA that was the source of the problem has reappeared and has been globally blocked, somehow trying to issue threats pretending to be from Bishonen. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The /28 block still prevents account creation. IMO this is still a little bit too wide. Cutlass^Ciera 20:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This way too wide. It should not even be possible to do range blocks this wide unless you're a Checkuser or steward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

When I reinstated the partial block I must have had the ACB box checked and missed it. I had already removed the block entirely right after hearing about log-in issues, but my restoration of the previous partial block might have caused the account creation block, which was definitely not intended. NRP has corrected it. Apologies all around. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sock farm vandalism on Rand Paul

Need an admin to step in and clean up: Special:History/Rand Paul. I've reported some (not all) to AIV, but there's a backlog. A similar pattern happened yesterday on Christopher A. Wray. Is this a known LTA pattern? Jfire (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the accounts share a naming scheme of nonsensical strings of random letters, I suspect so. SHSR _{T • C} 23:36, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:39, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Revdel applied, semi'd for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

They've started up again on Christopher A. Wray. Jfire (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Misty1967 – suspected conflict of interest

Misty1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• See their response to my warning on their talk page. They seemingly made a confession of a COI when they said they worked as the personal assistant of Sam Walsh (businessman).

SHSR _{T • C} 00:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Would someone please explain why information can't be changed on Wikipedia. I have been asked to change Sam's information to current information ie changes to dates of board commitments and grandchildren numbers. These are true and factual. Misty1967 (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no interest in Sam Walsh. I simply found that article – and your edit – on the recent changes page. I saw that you removed heavily sourced content without explanation, and reverted your edit promptly. SHSR _{T • C} 00:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for no explanation. This is the first time that I have actually done anything with Wikipedia. I created an account solely for the purpose of making these factual changes. Am I able to put them through again and explain in the source why these changes have been made. Misty1967 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

By source, we mean "what document are we getting this information from". Note, we cannot take your word for it as we don't know you from Adam - see our information about reliable sources for what would count. Morwen (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can bring back your edits, but Wikipedia conflict of interest policies still stand. SHSR _{T • C} 00:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I shall do them now. Warm regards. Misty1967 (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Misty1967 Woah, hold it right there! Did you carefully read WP:COI as other editors in this thread seriously advised you to? SHSR _{T • C} 00:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) On User talk:Misty1967, the user in question said: I work as his personal assistant.
@Misty1967: As your relationship with the article's subject involves monetary exchange, you must comply with WP:PAID, which involves disclosing your relationship with Sam Walsh, preferably on your user page at User:Misty1967.

If you wish to continue editing the article, I strongly suggest you use the {{edit COI}} template on the article's talk page to propose edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Please visit WP:COI and read carefully, then follow the instructions presented therein. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked Misty1967 from editing the article directly. @Misty1967, please use edit requests and declare your connection with Walsh. Star Mississippi 01:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Uh...😒 I found a new edit of that article from half an hour ago that changed some end dates. The catch is that it's almost the exact same edit Misty did, just without the content removal. I feel like this is suspected of WP:LOUTSOCK. SHSR _{T • C} 02:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

blocked, semi'ed. @Misty1967, you the person are not able to edit this article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sam Walsh appeared on ABC 7.30 Report with presenter Leigh Sales ahead of the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane, November 2014. As CEO of the second largest mining company in the world, Walsh welcomed the deal between the US and China to reduce carbon emissions. The deal was announced at the Asia-Pacific leaders meeting in Beijing. Walsh viewed the focus of the announcement on technology advances as the key to solving carbon emissions.

This is what we reverted the editor to keep in the article??? This is dreck. jp×g🗯️ 02:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we clean out the resumé stuff in general from this article, so long as we are here and looking at it? Generally people make those to get ahead in their careers, but this guy seems to already be quite accomplished and successful, so perhaps he can make do without it. jp×g🗯️ 02:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The article needs a good stubbing. Star Mississippi 12:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Possible off-site canvassing for The Epoch Times RFC

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

---

User:Larry Sanger, who was blocked indefinitely for off-site canvassing over another issue at WP:SANGERBAN, also tried to dilute the Epoch Times RFC over whether it should be described as "far-right" by advertising it to his 96k followers on his rather conspiracy laden X account.

Also there has not been much scrutiny of single-purpose accounts per WP:SPA. User:ClifV had previously tried to push the same views, and was previously blocked and unblocked due to some unconfirmed sockpuppet allegations. ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain what action you are looking for as a result of this post? If it is a complaint against Larry Sanger, CBAN is already in place and nothing more can be done. If it is a complaint against ClifV, you need to inform them, which you have not, and give a clear statement of what behavior you are objecting to, with diffs. If it's neither of those, what are you looking for? M kuhner (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are looking for a review of the RFC close, the correct place to do it would be at WP:AN but only after discussing it with the closer. TarnishedPath^talk 00:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That's what I'm looking for, thanks ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-40495-85, have a read of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The guy is banned, what is the desired action here? Putting a picture of him on the wall and throwing darts at it is not really a productive use of the administrators' noticeboard. jp×g🗯️ 02:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

User Zekesmukler: unsourced naming of bio subject’s relatives after warning

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

At Talk:Eric Nagler this user posted names of private individuals with no better source than that xe read about them somewhere, having been warned—fairly sternly I thought—about the same thing in April. Perhaps a warning from an administrator would be taken more to heart.—Odysseus1479 02:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As the notice at the top of the page says, you are required to notify the editor about this discussion; I’ve done it for you. Celjski Grad (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad: what was inadequate about the notice I left at User talk:Zekesmukler#Reported to administrators’ noticeboard?—Odysseus1479 08:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn’t see the notice farther up the page—I’ll remove the duplicate I added. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive content blanking

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

The user joined in July last year and since then the entirety of their edit corpus consists of unexplained/disruptive content blankings of sourced content (or replacing it with OR) in the WP:CT/SA space. Almost a 20 warnings and 2 ANI reports later (User talk:Juddhasumsher) simply didn't stop and doesn't respond. Was blocked last month (by ToBeFree ) but as soon as it expired returned to the disruptive blankings . Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Last edited 3 weeks ago. That was one single edit since the block. Anyone, feel free to block but that's a bit too far below the threshold for me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Bollocks, I misread June for July. Unblocked. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 18:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User EstebanIordache apparently NOTHERE

EstebanIordache (talk · contribs) made edits 5 in mainspace so far, 4 of them calling someone an "apologist" or "propagandist" for Ukraine, , , . The remaining one summarily calls anti-government resistance "sponsored by the United States". They also called me a "serious forger". Regards, Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 FIFA World Cup final

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

---

• 2026 FIFA World Cup final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been moved to BOOO Argentina. Imagine cheating against England in the semi-finals but losing in the finals against Spain above its move protection?!? I can't move it back so reporting it here. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 09:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The relevant user is Saverush (talk · contribs) who imo is WP:NOTHERE. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 09:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The VOA is already blocked, and I upped the move protection on the article to ECP (which is something I find myself having to do a lot more often these days). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That's Timelash, as revealed in their unblock request. Annh07 (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For the record, you can't "up" move protection to ECP. Extended confirmed is the minimum; while you technically can set move protection to autoconfirmed that, like the goggles, does nothing because non-autoconfirmed editors are not allowed to move pages at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive AI usage and editing by Aaron Rubinstein

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

---

Aaron Rubinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor submitted an AI-generated draft Draft:Selcuk Cara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) three times, despite being warned four times (1 2 3 4). They have also removed AfC decline templates (1 2) despite having been warned. They created the AI-generated draft Draft:Selçuk Zvi Cara affair and the AI-generated article Selçuk Zvi Cara affair, currently at AfD. They have continued to communicate with AI (1, 2, 3). A block is clearly warranted. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Aaron Rubinstein. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Daniel Mansell and Toys "R" Us UK

• Daniel Mansell (talk · contribs)
• Toys "R" Us UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor continually adds crufty history lists with apparent AI-generated help despite guidance not to; possible WP:COMPETENCY issue. Tried WP:AIV after my last revert and received suggestion to come here instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywatcher68 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

~2026-40662-35 starting an argument with me instead of just adding a citation

~2026-40662-35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This user added unsourced info to Shamsul-hasan Shams Barelvi and I reverted their edit because it had no citation, putting a boilerplate uw-unsourced on their talk page properly. Instead of just accepting Wikipedia's citation policies, they started to fight me. First they claimed "she" is Barelvi's granddaughter, which I was skeptical of. Then they called me a bot. I kept kindly asking them to just add a citation to the unsourced claim they added to the article, but they started calling me incredibly rude, insensitive, uncivil and ignorant when they could have just sourced their info and none of this unnecessary drama would have happened in the first place. They even added an unconstructive and hypocritical message on my talk page, accusing me of being "uncivil" when they started by refusing to abide by Wikipedia verifiability policies. Please do something about this disruptive user. Thank you,

SHSR _{T • C} 13:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You said I'm not sure what you're yapping about now after someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies talked about a family trauma caused by a violent and devasting event? Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. Morwen (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I deeply apologize for that little sentence. I could have been nicer there. My bad; I won't say that again.

That said, I still kindly ask that the user add a reliable source for that info. SHSR _{T • C} 13:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't think it's me you've got to apologise to. Morwen (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you point out exactly when they began to fight [you]? To me, it seems like they were only confused with the policies in place before asking you to be respectful after you said you were not sure what [they're] yapping about in relation to the partition of India, as Morwen has pointed out. Not exactly sure what's "hypocritical" about the message they sent you. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

When they called me a bot. I already kindly requested them to review how to add reliable sources. Instead, they assumed I was a bot. I'm not sure why they would say that about me, but it could be because I use boilerplate warnings that Twinkle supplies and countless Wikipedians use, or because ClueBot NG and related bots often autorevert edits so "anti-vandalism" feels like an automated activity to some newcomers. SHSR _{T • C} 22:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

they asked you what i take to be an honest question, yes likely suggested by your use of standard warning templates which while they do have advantages can read as impersonal and automated. (your point that countless wikipedians is true but... put yourself in their shoes... How do they know that?) We ask users if they are bots (well, if they're using an LLM, same difference) every single day. Morwen (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like it's better for me to just stay away from that user so I don't look bad at this point. Do you think we should just close this discussion and stop trying to lecture the user on citation policies? SHSR _{T • C} 01:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

HoldenFan1104 - persistent sourcing issues despite innumerable warnings

HoldenFan1104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has user talk warnings spanning back to November 2023 on their talk page, but primarily is causing problems through their constant lack of sourcing. Just from the last few months - . They've also, despite multiple warnings on their talk page, persistently used unreliable sources. Most recently on 29 June, 2 months after the warning was first posted - . The final stray, given they have received two final warning notices, was this edit where they again add unsourced trivia to an article.

Can we please make it abundantly clear to this editor that sourcing isn't a nice to have or chore, it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the user doesn’t understand sourcing and WP:BURDEN; after two “final” warnings, if the same issue persists, some formal restriction is definitely needed Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

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

---

• ~2026-40529-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Directly related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#Vandalism, 3RR and possible sockpuppetry and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Luca Vendrame/Archive. Persistent vandalism across multiple articles (Opinion polling for the next Portuguese legislative election and 2026 Berlin state election). This has also been reported at WP:AIV, but it is currently saturated with vandalism notices. Impru20^talk 14:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as suspected sock. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

O Conbhuidhe

O Conbhuidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has a history of questionable editing, but this, this and this from today suggest immediate action is needed to stop them. FDW777 (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space, they seem to have been opining in articles for a while now, and the latest is just bigoted. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For the following samples submitted in the shared evidence, it is plain violation of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and countless other policies and guidelines (+ the grammar). If done once, the user could be let off with a notice. In this case, I don't see why an action should not be taken

“Just people looking to find a reason to see themselves as special. Well they are special. They’ve done horrible things in Ireland and the USA since the 19th century. So let’s stops with this silly ethnic issue. I’m Irish. Ancestry tells me so. Grow up. You’re not Irish.” “Stealing our land, murdering innocent civilians, participating in ethnic cleansing and brutal oppression did not make you Irish. Quite the opposite really.” “The maps were intentionally drawn this way by the British government with the intention of maintaining a British, English speaking, Protestant majority in the 6 most northern counties where the British government had been most successful at ethnically cleansing the native Irish population and repopulating it with loyal subjects of the crow from the Scottish Lowlands (which unlike the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides were not ethnic Gaels with centuries of shared culture) and Brits from Northern England.” “Both areas of Britain had long been populated by Anglo-Saxons, who viewed Irish and Scottish Gaels (Celts) as “subhuman”.”

Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Blasphemy, Religious Attack, and blatant vandalism altogether

~2026-40707-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

List of Indian films of 2026 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) []

Venkata Karthik Vadlamudi (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the TA. For future reference, WP:AIV would be a more appropriate venue to report such a case. Mfield (Oi!) 18:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Venkata Karthik Vadlamudi Note that "Blasphemy" isn't a blockable (or reportable) offense on Wikipedia. The TA was blocked only for the vandalism. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 20:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Avi Holtzman

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

---

User:Avi Holtzman created Draft:The War Trilogy and Draft:The War Trilogy (1990–1994), which are definitely a conflict of interest, but that's not really the major problem here. (BTW FYI, both drafts' content seems to have been merged into the latter). Anyway, the main issue is their constant removal of AfC decline templates and COI templates from the drafts. Avi has done this multiple times, and has continued to do so in spite of several warnings on their talk page (and in edit summaries). Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Suspicious Accounts HudsonFriedman and Hjkall

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

---

The account User:Hjkall was created today and has so far made five edits that are all related to the page Iron Boy (film) and solely done to agree with User:HudsonFriedman. User:HudsonFriedman later changed their userpage in this edit to include that they operate Hjkall. This edit was made six minutes after I told Hjkall that having multiple undeclared accounts is against Wikipedia's rules. Jon698 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not support giving them an indef for this BTW. One week at the most should be the harshest punishment. Jon698 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698 Blocks and bans are not punitive; they are purely protective. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 22:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

After you warned them, they put the proper notices on their userpage. Sounds like tehy did exactly what you told them to. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Multi-account troll dedicated to spreading disinformation

Next time, please update the SPI case. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The troll is back, and now uses the account User:Incantations39

Just one more fake user for the collection in the investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustTheFacts93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40913-97 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Blocked, and protected Talk:Candy Candy for two weeks this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate and address issues

Dodszi gera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have personally warned this user 4 different times (1, 2, 3 & 4). Thus far, Dodszi gera has refused to acknowledge a single notice on their talk page and has continued making the same errors over and over again, this time on Casadei (brand). At this point their edits are disruptive and violate WP:ENGAGE. Request a block from article namespace until Dodszi is willing to respond in some capacity. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:POINT/WP:NOTHERE behavior from Soy Mencho (talk · contribs)

Soy Mencho (talk · contribs) seems to be evoking WP:NOTHERE and WP:POINT style editing. To wit:

Earlier, the user reinstated a "Trivia" section that I removed from Coyote Lake (San Bernardino County, California) with no edit summary, and later added a Facebook page as a "source". When I pointed this out, their response was to make fun of my user name.

This user has a long-standing pattern of dubious edits dating back to at least April 2025, including:

• Unsourced additions to Terrorism Confinement Center
• Addition of "Fox News" as an ally in Proud Boys; when confronted, defended this with Fox News has openly expressed sympathy towards American far-right clubs and organizations such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. I could even find sources reinforcing this but I'm sure you'd only cry about it and remove them, eventually.
• Addition of a non-neutral statement on Rita Panahi
• Two additions of non-neutral content to Nick Shirley
• This section showing constant edit-warring on football (soccer) related articles over improper use of logos. This included such quotes as you don’t own Wikipedia or tell me what to do, My username is none of your business, If anything, it’s YOU who’s got no business to do in my user page or anyone else’s. I’m no 'troll' like you think, let alone a 'criminial'. My username was okay for several years and with no incident, now you wanna cry over it???, and I answer nobody. I’ve done nothing wrong here, other than some random user simply losing it over my username.

There's also the fact that their user name evokes drug lord El Mencho. This all seems like behavior unbecoming an editor who's been here for two years. While there is some signal to the noise, there is also a clear pattern of hostility to other editors and unconstructive editing patterns which I feel may warrant a block. Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-39523-89

~2026-39523-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, and has continued after two blocks for persistent addition of unsourced content, one on the 16th for 24h, and another on the 18th for 48h. Diffs of addition of unsourced content shortly off latest block: 1, 2. Waxworker (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from mainspace. Blocks are obviously having no effect on their editing behaviors. @~2026-39523-89: can explain their actions to us if they care to be unblocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)