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

Continued chronic and long-term incivility with Bgsu98 and bad-faith talk page deletions

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

---

• Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bgsu98 has had a long-term, chronic, and severe problem with incivility creating a hostile environment for others to work with them. Since their block for this in February, during which they immediately promised to do better (see User talk:Bgsu98/Archives/2026/February#February 2026), their behavior has not significantly improved. In this late-March BOOMERANG thread, they were flagged for numerous instances of incivility in edit summaries in the course of a single calendar week.

This problem has resurfaced again at GAN, where he made the comment I’m not fucking arguing with anyone. Someone asked for an explanation, so I gave it. Jesus Christ. This in isolation would definitely slide, but the block in February came after an extensive earlier complaint and the subsequent ANI thread above contained more examples, so he has already been given multiple chances and plenty of WP:ROPE on this matter.

Additionally, while perusing their contributions for this post I found at least two instances of them deleting earlier conversations with me from article talk pages, in very-clear-cut blatant violation of WP:TPG: and which happened this week. These instances seem to be a bad-faith attempt to cover up their earlier incivility, though there are additional instances involving others' comments: deleting a legitimate, even if ill-informed, edit request, another cover-up of incivility. This behavior on its own is disruptive as well.

To this day, I have chosen not to contribute to figure skating articles much because of the hostile environment created by this user. It's beyond time that sanctions be enacted because they have proven themself to be utterly incapable of self-regulation. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what's going on because there's no edit summaries. It would be nice if people followed Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you. But, at the same time, removing discussions from talk pages without an edit summary is disruptive. As far as the content itself goes, I personally don't care that much if people act exasperated and irritable, as long as they stay civil. That means the occasional "fuck" is alright as long as you're not directing it toward someone. It's harder to keep your cool when someone is saying "fuck you" or calling you a "fucking moron" than it is when someone throws random "fuck"s into a sentence. Then again, I used to live across the street from a crack house, so I have different views than many other people on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate: With regards to the GA thread, User:Ritchie333 posted a comment objecting to an action I’d taken and asking for others’ opinions. Other editors commented that they agreed that my actions had been ill-advised. Ritchie333 reverted my edits, but left a comment saying that I could offer an explanation if I wanted. I offered the explanation. I figured that would be the end of it. At no point did I argue with, dispute, or object to his reversions. Yet editors continued to pile on heaping doses of reprimands. Again, I was fine with his initial objection and reversal. My comment quoted above was out of exasperation: I offered the explanation that was requested. I get that no one agreed with me. I was (and still am) fine with that. There will not be a recurrence. It was the dogpiling that was unnecessary. As for the talk pages, that was my fault; I’ll apologize for that, too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think people were confused by your rationale and were seeking clarity, not arguing with you. You stated at WT:GAN that you "don't think it's appropriate to have GA nominations in the queue where the nominator is unable to participate in the process". This is generally understandable for longer blocks, but the block was made on May 1 and set to expire on May 8. You removed the GANs on May 6. Did you realize, at the time you removed them, that the block would expire in less than two days? It appears that you saw she was blocked and rushed to remove the nominations without checking into anything further. Then when it was noticed, rather than admitting you made a mistake, you doubled down saying it wasn't clear she would return and claiming that her talk page access was revoked (it wasn't). At this point, the issue isn't that you made a mistake, everyone makes mistakes. It's that your response to being advised of the issue was to become defensive and then outright uncivil. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos: That was not my original intent (to be defensive). I was asked for an explanation; I provided it. No one agreed with me… That’s fine, lesson learned, no hard feelings (on my part). Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason why I opened this thread is that we have seen this pattern of behavior before, where you would promise to do better and then end up continuing the same or similar behavior, so we need to be assured that you have concrete strategies in place to avoid having to have this conversation for at least the second time. I don't see that here, yet. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the third time I've specifically asked whether or not you understood it was a shortly-expiring block, and you have avoided answering the question every single time. I can't tell if it's because you're unable to clarify (ie you don't understand the difference between a timed block and an indef) or if it's because you're otherwise unwilling to explain. It's hard to accept "lesson learned" as an outcome if it's not clear that you understand what went wrong in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos: I'm sorry, I wasn't deliberately evading a question. Yes, I knew it was a timed block, but like I said, when I checked their talk page, I honestly thought that they had had their talk page privilege revoked. The original intent was just to clear the GA queue of nominations (even if just temporarily) where the nominator couldn't participate. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• On May 1, I wrote him a message concerning a skater whose article he had recently redirected, but he just reverted me immediately.
  (That's all I want to say... Okay, not a big deal, I posted my findings to the German and Japanese Wikipedias...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
  (Lately, I started visiting WP:ANI to rest between article creations and out of boredom. I'm not planning to engage with this discussion.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As someone else who has had a history of trouble with Bgsu98, speaking on behalf of me and MANY other users including User:Jasper Deng, I can only question why on earth they have not received a permanent ban for their attitude and language towards other Wikipedians since they joined and decided to change a whole heap of articles. Not only are they rude, aggressive, they've made comments on people's mental health etc, they don't contribute to the project in a constructive way, and the Biogrpahies of Living Persons articles they have created lack content, and should be marked for deletion (they should be looked at because barely any pass WP:GNG. I think you need to stop glossing over the amount of times this user has been reported and please actually DO something towards getting Bgsu banned for good. Everyone's tired of it. ~2026-27956-74 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs of the incidents, so editors don't need to go digging around through the history to find the edits you're referring to? Blue-Sonnet 04:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@User:Blue-Sonnet This user has a pattern of personal attacks, edit warring and the inability to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Here are some diffs of this behaviour using profanity and calling a user an idiot. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE if others are expressing the same concern over years. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: Out of all fairness, if they were NOTHERE I would have said they were. They're not. Since they already have served a block for this, the question is whether their behavior since that block needs to be addressed, and your diffs are way too old to be that relevant, even though yes they'd be very concerning otherwise.

Those diffs do show that this problem is extremely long-term. @NinjaRobotPirate: Also, the last ANI thread shows that this matter is more than just undirected f-bombs. In those diffs (linked in the older thread), Bgsu98 demeans and degrades others' edits repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of requiring admins to read a discussion and hunt down evidence buried in it somewhere, you could just post the evidence here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate: With regards to SF1234's complaint from 2023, he had been told repeatedly to not post on my talk page, yet continued to plaster it with automated Twinkle templates. It was brought to ANI, and he was told to stop posting on my talk page and I was told to not call people idiots anymore. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Personal attack from User:Bgsu98. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Now that I'm on my laptop again I can reproduce the comment in question, by User:AirshipJungleman29:

I hope you don't consider adjusting a link or two a "significant change of text" Bgsu98? You may not know that this is a popular subject at the minute, with another prolific FA contributor up at ArbCom for, allegedly, reverting edits with incivility on the grounds they need no improvement, having passed through the FA process. Looking at your contributions, I'd warn you to take care; in the past week only, you have:

• Reverted a good-faith attempt to add an image with the edit summary "just awful"
• Decreased the length of a section title with the edit summary "decreasing nonsense"
• Twice reverted good-faith (and as far as I can see, correct!) attempts to add a medal table at 2026 World Figure Skating Championships with the edit summaries "What in fuck's name is this nonsense???" and "inaccurate nonsense"
• Reverting a good-faith attempt to add future competitions with the supremely unhelpful edit summary "Nope"
• Against talk page guidelines, removing all evidence of a past GA nomination from the article's talk page, presumably because it was unsuccessful?

As far as I can see, not one of these edits, again all from the past week only, have come with a single consensus-building talkpage post. For someone who, according to their talk page, is currently experiencing significant stress and wishing to work in areas less prone to conflict, you appear to be doing the opposite? I'd be careful if I were you, especially considering ToBeFree blocked you a month ago for pretty much the same issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to make my initial complaint too lengthy but this earlier thread is part of that. Bgsu98 acknowledged some of these, but as we have seen this week, their promises to do better simply do not hold up over time. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This IP is a long-time sockpuppet. Pinging User:Ponyo. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh lovely, I didn't see any other accounts immediately pop up on TAIV, but now I'm looking at the specific details I can see lot of proxies and a VPN on that address. Blue-Sonnet 04:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Blue-Sonnet: This is the same person in London who swatted me a few years ago, resulting in the local police showing up at my home in the middle of the night. She doxxed me on here, published my name, address, contact information, etc., made numerous comments about hoping I’d die, and so on, because she didn’t like how I enforced the manual of style on the Dancing with the Stars season articles. Can you imagine doing that over a friggin’ reality dance show? This is the sort of nonsense, stalking, and harassment I have had to put up with. If I have lashed out uncivilly (which I have owned up to), it’s because that’s how I have been treated. I don’t offer that as an excuse, just an explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That's awful, I'm really sorry to hear that happened to you. Blue-Sonnet 10:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet It's merely a very large UK mobile phone range on which many different types of VPN software may be used. Black Kite (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That's very useful to know, thank you! Blue-Sonnet 10:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this temp account user does not speak for me. Bgsu98 certainly knows what they're doing with regard to BLP's. However, the part I do agree with is that their incivility problem, outlined in the opening statement and for which there are two previous ANI threads with copious diffs linked, is ongoing and is at the point where some sort of sanction–block, topic ban, or other restriction–is going to become necessary. Moscow Connection likely would have felt better about potentially recreating the Caroline Gulke article if Bgsu98 didn't summarily remove their talk page message asking about the redirect. In other words, Bgsu98's behavior actively drives away other editors from the subject of figure skating, which is in sore need of more editors. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, Moscow Connection was told numerous times to not post on my talk page, yet has at least twice since then. I didn't fire off a smart comment, I didn't bring them here for harassment; I just deleted the comments and went along with my business. No one is obligated to respond to unsolicited messages on ones talk page, especially if the person leaving it has been told to not post there. I'm not looking to restart anything here with MC. He does his thing and I do my thing, and we actually managed to both make edits to Russian Figure Skating Championships without incident. Additionally, when MC was threatened with a topic ban in our previous ANI, I opposed it at the time as I didn't think it was necessary, and I still don't. I also remember once seeing a troll leaving harassing, abusive messages on MC's talk page, and I reported them to AIV, because despite our differences in the past, no one deserves that kind of abuse. (By the way, MC, like any editor, is welcome to restore an article that has been redirected if they disagree with it, unless the redirect was a result of an AFD.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• As embarrassed as I am to have to put my personal business out there, I'm afraid I have to explain the source of this conflict. Jasper and I met at the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, where I thought we had formed a positive relationship, talked about both being adult skaters, males, which is rare, and working on Wikipedia. Fast forward to Talk:Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/GA1, which Jasper trashed, stamped with an F, and quick-failed. I would never treat someone whom I considered a friend like that. Never. I don't understand that mindset. If I saw a GA nomination from a friend where I thought it had serious problems, I would post my comments on the article's talk page or my friend's talk page, and then help them to work on the article to address whatever problems I had. I would never do that to a friend, trash their work and then just walk away. I resubmitted the GA nomination, as was my right, which Jasper quick-failed again, in violation of GAN policy. By the way, some of his observations were valid and some were not, and the article is now a Featured Article. Since then, he has wikistalked me across the project looking for "gotcha" moments. Maybe I have been uncivil at times, which I have acknowledged, but I have been stalked, doxxed, threatened, and swatted because of my work here, so I'm afraid that's eaten away at my patience and goodwill. I have tried to apologize when I've let my anger get the best of me, but at this point, Jasper has given me an ulcer and forced me to go up to the next dosage on my antidepressants. If completing these national championship results weren't so important to me, I'd have thrown in the towel months ago. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  You cannot attempt to flip the script because this discussion concerns your behavior towards multiple other editors, not just me. If multiple other editors are scared away from editing figure skating articles because of your behavior, then it is your behavior that needs to be addressed. I also have strict personal boundaries which in this case means that if anyone acts inappropriately, I treat them the same as anyone else. Additionally, I, unlike you, self-regulate sufficiently to not cuss out or swear, and I keep to my promises when it comes to behavior call-outs. I am also not the one who has earned multiple blocks for their WP:BLUDGEON behavior towards others in articles (here an umbrella term for the collective issues others have).

  If this were just about me, we would not have multiple others agreeing that your behavior is disruptive and inappropriate. Those in glass houses ought not to throw stones. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Additionally, I did not attend the 2024 USFSA championships and therefore Bgsu98 is outright lying. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe it was Worlds in Boston; I can't remember for sure. It had the year wrong; it was 2025, so maybe Kansas if not Boston. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe Worlds 2025, which I did attend. But as you can see, I maintain personal boundaries and do not give anyone a "pass" for disruptive behavior regardless of any personal relationships with them. Also, regarding "wikistalking": It is not particularly relevant that I am the only editor affected who has had the energy to bring the issue of your behavior here, and since the 2022 team event GAC, I have not been interfering at all with your GAN's even though I have strong views on many of them, being better informed than most reviewers.

  While I appreciate that you at least acknowledge in passing your incivility, what's missing is acknowledging the broader impact your behavior has on others, and a concrete action plan that is less trivial than "I won't do it again" or "I apologize". Speaking of personal boundaries, Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY; regulation of your own behavior, including disengaging when needed (which I often do), is entirely your responsibility. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• I was pinged and quoted somewhere above. Bgsu98's conduct seems to indicate problems with ownership and civility, especially concerning good-faith communication. Meanwhile Jasper Deng's conduct (although reporting the above issues) does seem to verge upon WP:HOUNDING. I'd suggest that each editor receive a final warning regarding these issues, so they know they're on thin ice (ha!) and that any further reports at this noticeboard will likely result in a block. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with AirshipJungleman29 on both counts. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

*I always thought figure skating was such a genteel sport. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Um...Assault of Nancy Kerrigan... Schazjmd (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal : Interaction ban between Bgsu98 and Jasper Deng

• I'm wondering if we should suggest an interaction ban between the two of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think one is warranted considering that I've limited my interactions to only calling out his behavior to others since that incident. However, I also do not think my actions rise anywhere near his, because then Moscow Connection (talk · contribs) and Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) would not be finding his actions a hindrance to editing figure skating articles. If anything, he needs a topic ban. I disengage when needed while he shows no such ability. Although my own behavior at the GAN wasn't optimal, I acknowledged this in the February thread I opened here, while he has continued making it impossible for others to edit figure skating articles. That plus the talk page deletions, which are under no circumstances justified. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm already trying to avoid him and have deleted a certain number of figure-skating articles from my watchlist. (And I'm even afraid to post here now cause I don't want to get into trouble. When I tried to post here a year ago I only got into trouble. I got the hint that nothing was going to change and that I should stay away for my own best.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I should note that Bgsu98's statement below is patently false because he directly replied to me here, where my comment was not meant to solicit a reply from him (and thus was not placed as a reply to any of his comments or even the original thread). I had made that comment in lieu of a direct escalation here.

  Also, the earlier ANI thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1215#Bgsu98: Incivility and WP:OWN behavior surrounding figure skating articles where I cite a very long history of problematic behavior by Bgsu98 in skating articles, including many instances that predate my interactions with him. This includes Moscow Connection's thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE, which I would not fully characterize as "getting in trouble" only for Moscow Connection, as Bgsu98 was also called out for their conduct in that situation too.

  As in my earlier thread, the common denominator of all of these issues is Bgsu98's editing in figure skating, and because I do not see any sign of this pattern of bludgeoning other editors out of this space ceasing, I am in favor of a topic ban for Bgsu98. While I always am loathe to suggest that for a prolific editor, it has come at a significant expense to other editors in this topic. If he is not removed or otherwise made to change his behavior, I will not feel safe to edit figure skating articles despite being quite knowledgeable about it myself–much more so than the reviewers of his GAN's. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry but there is no category of behavior "I am avoiding you but also complain about you by name to other people" — your belief that this is a thing seems like a good basis for an Iban. If you are talking about someone, and they respond, that interaction is on you, obviously. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Complaining about them here with evidence is exactly what I've done, and is totally appropriate given their impacts on others. This would not be a discussion if I were the only impacted user. If anything, not mentioning them by name would have been the inappropriate thing. It's perfectly fine for me to leave the comment there for the purposes of the other editors; what they do with the comment is what they do. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  If you're out here complaining about someone (by name or otherwise) and they respond, that does not make it "patently false" that they are avoiding you! Because you are initiating confrontation by doing that (in a more round-about way than if you directly wrote to them). There is no category "I, JD, don't want to interact with this person, except that I want to be the policeman who tracks their behavior and talks about them with other people". ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Based on these comments I'm leaning to supporting a mutual iban. It's clear Jasper Deng is going to continue to hound Bgsu98 and Bgsu98 has also contributed enough to the problem that I don't think we can do a one way. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am willing to accept a limitation on commenting in mutual threads, voluntarily, but I reserve the right to further report their behavior here if I observe another editor being scared away from figure skating. I already voluntarily respect their preference not to get messages from me on their talk page; however, that also will result in direct escalation here more often.

  @Nil Einne: It's clear Jasper Deng is going to continue to hound Bgsu98 is an WP:ASPERSION with no evidence. If I had any further intent to do so, then I would be following them to all their GAN's and what not. Instead, I have not even edited the topic since that instance. I can agree to not even make comments like the WT:GAN one, which I guess was not a good idea; again, however, the alternative is that if Bgsu98 scares away another editor, I reserve the right to directly escalate the situation here. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I reserve the right to further report their behavior here if... is the evidence. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  No it's not. This is a recognized exemption from even an IBAN. It would be one thing if I were to report every little f-bomb he drops, which is not what I'll do. If I see another content dispute where he bludgeons the process and makes another editor uncomfortable contributing to this topic, that's another, and absolutely needs a report here. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Lol no actually there is no "I want to follow this person around to get them in trouble about things that do not concern me" exception to ibans. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  The TA is right. I suggest you reread WP:IBAN especially the part WP:BANEX. While "e.g." is used, so technically there can be "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" besides "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself", it definitely does not apply to asking for sanction to the editor for other reasons whether in a thread you initiated or a thread started by someone else. Indeed stopping editors starting threads where they just snipe at each other at ANI is one of the reasons ibans happen, as here. In fact, if an editor starts a thread saying "I want to lift the ban because the editor should be topic banned or indefinitely blocked instead", while this is technically about the ban itself, it's unlikely to be seen as legitimate and necessary dispute resolution and will at a minimum generally result in a warning to the editor who does it not to try such stuff again. Asking for a lifting of the iban because it's no longer necessary after a topic ban or especially an indefinite block would generally be acceptable but there's no guaranteed the iban will be lifted (and trying to hard is likely to reduce the chance it will be). Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  What I meant by "getting in trouble" is that I could receive an interaction ban which would hinder my ability to contribute to figure-skating articles. This so-called "interaction ban" seems to be thought of as a one-size-fits-all solution here on ANI.
  1. An editor removing comments from his talk page, why not start by simply forbidding him to remove comments? 2. An editor swears, why not start by forbidding him to swear? 3. An editor has problems with ownership, why not start by forbidding him to revert?
  4. Too many threads on ANI? Let's forbid those figure-skating people from reporting on ANI! jk --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  User:Ritchie333: I am fine with an interaction ban. I have avoided interacting with him at all since the GAN. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  These are the articles I am currently working on. There are literally thousands of figure skating articles, more than enough for us to both edit without interacting. My focus is the national and international championships (the overarching articles, not the year-specific ones). I can agree to forego editing any biographies or articles about skating elements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I am not willing to accept any limitation on my ability to edit the topic when it is your behavior that is causing other editors, at least two besides me conservatively, to be scared away from the whole topic. To others observing: the second diff of inappropriate talk page comment removal is problematic in more ways than just that as well. (diff here). That conversation is a prime example of how their long-term behavior is inappropriate and makes it impossible for him to work with. As someone who skates too (which both of us fall under, by the way), he should know better than to dig in when clearly wrong about something as basic as the grade of execution. Also, since much of my interest is in current skating events and their results, particularly this year's Olympics, this is not acceptable to me. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support Iban, this report clearly shows the issues are mutual. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support a mutual iban. It's possible this won't be enough to address Bgsu98's behavioural problems but this should at least help clear the air by removing a destructive dynamic that is harming collaboration and attempts to deal with problems. If this isn't enough to deal with Bgsu98's problems we can deal with it at another time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I tried to offer a good-faith compromise. 🤷 Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:33, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I do not agree that it's going to be enough to limit their future behavior and thus strongly believe a topic ban is needed. Moscow Connection has said they are fearful of commenting here out of possibly "getting in trouble"; however, everything suggests that they view Bgsu98's behavior as a severe hindrance to their own ability to contribute. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I wrote this before reading Jasper Deng's comment above #c-Jasper Deng-20260512202900-~2026-28744-62-20260512202700. The fact they believe their behaviour is an exception to an iban makes the Iban even more urgent. This is clearly an editor who's behaviour is getting so bad it's crossing into the harassment threshold and they're clearly unable to step back and see things from an outsider perspective. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I concede I was wrong about that, since this is often a carve out to similar sanctions elsewhere (on other projects). However, my core belief about Bgsu98 will never change until their behavior changes, even though I will not put those views here should the IBAN go forward. It is, however, disappointing that you are ignoring the longer-term problem of his behavior. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  User:Nil Einne: Thank you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support one-way IBAN. I hereby and voluntarily agree to not comment on any thread he makes anywhere on the project unless it is here and specifically about me. I further hereby agree voluntarily that I will ask another editor before any ANI reports about them; however, I also hope Bgsu98 gets a topic ban considered given their long-term behavior. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  After some reflection, I'm okay with a two-way IBAN as long as my following request for a TBAN is either passed or another satisfactory remedy is found. I'm not willing to allow the topic of figure skating to lose any more editors due to his behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support IBAN (either one-way or two-way is fine by me and I'll leave that to other editors to decide; at the moment it looks like it'll likely be two-way). There has been way too much hostility in the topic of figure skating to be a positive impact. I haven't interacted with Jasper Deng a whole lot, but I've personally had quite good experiences dealing with Bgsu98 in the past. I however agree that based on the above the tension between the two has gone to a level where I don't see anything good happening from interactions like this. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support two-way IBAN. this comment only served to further escalate the issue and was not helpful in anyway. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose any bans cause they would only hinder both editors' ability to contribute to figure-skating articles.
  There are a lot of people who are just passing through here. Why do they vote if they don't know anything? Jasper Deng has not edited since May 12. Don't you see that the admins are going to let this section be archived in 3 days? --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  The two editors are hindering each other from working happily and productively in their common area of interest. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Bgsu98 is a very productive editor who edits absolutely everything related to figure skating lately. For Justin Deng, the only way to observe the proposed restrictions and to continue to "work happily" on Wikipedia would be to just go away and avoid the figure-skating topic completely. Which he already does to some extent.
  It looks like the admins are willing to let this slide, but "passers-through" and wannabe admins are escalating. The discussion time was almost up. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Bgsu98 has agreed to limit the articles they edit, but also an iban does not forbid two editors from editing the same article if they are not interacting. The escalation happened when this was brought to ANI for consideration by the community; the community is now considering it. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  If he "agreed" not to edit some articles, it was a mistake and he should not do that. I was opposed to mass-proddings, mass-redirections and all that, but I can't in my right mind oppose improving random articles. IMHO, everyone should just go back to doing their own things. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  everyone should just go back to doing their own things Yes; an interaction ban is precisely the tool best suited to that goal. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Because other editors who are uninvolved (and thus more neutral) are able to see the evidence for themselves. Its clear that when these two editors interact tensions flare up and that isn't a one-sided issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban for Bgsu98 from figure skating

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

---

If we are going to have an IBAN, I would need at least a temporary TBAN of Bgsu98 from figure skating. I hereby propose a 6-month topic ban of Bgsu98 from figure skating given their numerous instances of bludgeoning (edit warring, incivility) that have made me, Moscow Connection, and Sportsfan 1234 uncomfortable contributing to one of our core topics. It may optionally be allowed to take effect only after the conclusion of the current WIkiCup if so desired.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That seems pretty illogical. What you're claiming is that Bgsu98's behaviour is so bad that it merits topic ban right now, yet at the same time it's not so bad that they can continue in figure skating topics because they're participating in WikiCup right now? Help me make sense into what you're saying. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I did that as a goodwill gesture, knowing that the problem will continue until then if we do enact that exception, and that he would be very upset to be unable to continue to participate. Yes, it's illogical to include, but I had a WP:IAR angle in my thinking. However, there's no obligation to enact that carveout. I still had enough empathy that I'm willing to tolerate his behavior and presence for a bit longer to close out, which I also think would reduce resentment on his side and make him less likely to try to violate the topic ban afterwards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose since the wording, as it stands right now, is rooted to be punitive and acts like a ticking time bomb. If this is the your best attempt to persuade us to enact a TBAN, I must say it isn't convincing at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose increasingly seeing some ownership from Jasper Deng here too—the bludgeoning of the discussion, this vindictive request for meaningless sanctions, the presumption to say "I would need at least a temporary TBAN of Bgsu98 from figure skating" as if this is a negotiation (see also "I reserve the right..."), the exaggeration of "one of our core topics", and the tone I'm sure everyone can feel bleeding into this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban for Bgsu98. I'm failing to understand why this wouldn't be implemented, considering the amount of users who have come forward to express they've felt frightened away from the topic of figure skating by this user's behaviour, not to mention the previous ANI's over this very topic. I feel we seem to be ignoring the fact that Jasper Deng isn't the only person to come forward here and that blame is shifting onto said user? Bgsu is a known troublemaker on this site and the amount of incidents prove it. This ban has been a LONG time coming and he should be grateful that admins have been so lenient thus far. ~2026-29009-43 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is the same U.K. sockpuppet mentioned above. The one who swatted my home, doxxed me on here, and threatened me numerous times ("As soon as you're dead, I'm reverting all of your edits", etc.). Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've stricken the comment as a likely sock abusing TA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm failing to understand what a six-month topic ban starting in November 2026 achieves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I'm allowed to !vote here as a non-admin but it seems a bit silly to ban Bgsu from figure skating when that's their main topic area. That's effectively just a polite total ban because why would they suddenly just start focusing on something else? Coming from another involved party, this just seems to me like a way to get Bgsu off Wikipedia entirely without actually banning them. In addition, let's say hypothetically this proposal was well-supported. Come the end of the current WikiCup, which is in November(?), the situation may have completely changed; maybe by that point there had been no further incidents, and then you start a six-month ban then indiscriminately anyway? Not sure this proposal is rooted in logic. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

User:JacobTheRox: You mention you are an involved party, but while I recognize your username, I don't recall having any disputes with you in the past. I apologize if we did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to say that Jasper Deng seems to be involved in this dispute and therefore suggesting banning you from the topic is a bit cheeky imho. Reading my comment again I can see how that's confusing. Facepalm JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you meant now. I'm glad to see I didn't upset someone else. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I oppose a TBAN as all that would do is prevent Bgsu from contributing in their main topic of interest. I'm seeing some WP:OWN behavior from Jasper Deng too, but in my opinion this may be best dealt with by a lesser sanction (not quite sure what yet). I personally think that we should try an IBAN first and see if things quiet down; I'm willing to at least discuss a TBAN later if needed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:IBAN is the best for now.

CostalCal (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. A ban would disrupt the editor's personal momentum. Let him continue his work on the articles he is working on. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• I have made a conscious effort to reign in my behavior since User:AirshipJungleman29 had a "come to Jesus" moment with me in the last ANI. My reaction at the recent thread at the Good Article talk page wasn't great, but it also wasn't directed at anyone and was in response to what felt like an undeserved dogpiling. It also had nothing to do with figure skating, which contradicts Jasper's statement that all of my misconduct comes back to FS articles. In fact, the stated reason for this ANI right now had nothing to do with FS. Jasper popped up at the thread in question with this: "Bgsu98 is continuing their pattern of gross incivility in this thread. I'm this close to referring this matter to ANI and probably would have had they not backed down on this matter." The bold is mine and indicates that at that point, he had no intention of bringing me here. I responded by telling him to leave me alone. His response: "Alright, to ANI you go." So, this referral had nothing to do with FS, although he plainly wants me off the FS project. Since February 2025, I have promoted 7 Featured Articles, 26 Featured Lists, and 59 Good Articles on figure skating topics. The Featured List project is the one that is most important to me, as I have been, since last February, reconstructing the results tables for various national figure skating championships by scouring newspaper and magazine archives, often in languages I don't speak. Since most skating federations have not kept records of the gold, silver, and bronze medalists for every year since they began, I can say for certain that Wikipedia has more accurate and more complete records of these results than most anyone else. I offer this not as any sort of justification or free pass, but only as evidence of how serious I take my work here. I have apologized in the past for conduct that was not exemplary, and I have had positive, successful interactions with dozens of editors here. There is only a small handful who have pushed my buttons, and I realize I need to stop taking the bait like I did at the GA thread that started this latest trip to ANI. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.
  – 1. Maybe you can re-integrate some of the data you deleted from those Amazing Race, Dancing with the Stars, Strictly Come Dancing etc. tables. It seems that you deleted some data and that that is something reality show fans (and even some participants) are very sore about. That said, I do not question your good intentions, but it really looks to me that those reality show fans have a different view of what tables should look like and they actually used those tables before 2021 when you trimmed them significantly.
  2. Maybe you can restore some of the figure-skating event and skater articles you redirected.
  2a. I also vaguely remember seeing you supporting a person called WikiCleanerMan (now blocked) who mass-redirected Russian Figure Skating Championships – some of them as recent as 2010 . I understand that no one is obliged to learn Russian, but it feels uncanny (to me personally) that that person thought that the Russian Championships weren't notable. In Russia, figure skating is one of the most covered sports in the media. And recently probably the most covered.
  P. S. I don't know, maybe I am wrong and I will get into trouble for saying this. But what happened looks like a "beginner's mistake" to me. I've seen this many times – a person comes to Wikipedia thinking it is some perfect encyclopedia, and then he sees some imperfect articles. And he thinks that by deleting those imperfect articles he will make Wikipedia perfect. When actually Wikipedia was much closer to perfect before the deletions. Cause it had more data. Wikipedia is a work in progress. I truly believe that having hundreds of bad articles is better than having a few perfect ones. Those bad articles will, too, became good with time. And then, Wikipedia will not only be a source for the "all-time medal table", which is what you seem to be working on now, but a source for an "all-time participants table", an "all-time scores table", etc. And only then, Wikipedia will be perfect. (Actually, it won't be perfect yet. If you want your lists to be perfect, you should add a kind of expert's overview of every skater's performance. Something akin to a live report. Akin to a live account of what happened. Those tables will be recreateable – by dusting off the archives – even a thousand years later. But live impressions may not live that long.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  You are just as capable as anyone else to restore an article that has been redirected which you believe should remain an article. That 2010 Russian Championship article could be restored. I just tried, but it needs to have the archives switched out and I can’t do that right now. I will try to get to it tomorrow afternoon unless you get to it first.

  And those reality TV tables… People are still squawking about that, when all I did was format them per Wikipedia’s manual of style. They can’t seem to figure out that this is an encyclopedia and not a fan blog. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  You see, I, as you do, have long to-do lists. [In the form of thousands of folders on my computer(s).] I even got stressed of just thinking about how much should be done. For example, I right now am looking at one hundred Japanese singers I can easily create stubs for. And a couple of hundred Japanese songs and albums. I know that I will create those articles and then will "live" and will sooner or later be expanded. What should I choose, recreating a few skater and figure-skating event articles (that actually already existed and were deleted in a mere second by a simple click of a button) or creating a thousand new ones? --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
  P. S. Those deletions were unfortunate, recreating those articles is a lot of work. Definitely too much for me. Those articles were done by very committed people who are now gone. (Unsurpisingly since their work got deleted.)
  I just know that I will be more useful for Wikipedia doing something else.--Moscow Connection (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  The people who created all those event articles (Skate America by year, Skate Canada by year) definitely had access to something that isn't available online. Okay, I can find a couple of sources for the 2010 Russian Championships. (Not that obvious and simple given that Yandex deleted all the news prior to [I don't remember] from their news search engine.) But what about hundreds of other articles? No, too overwhelming for me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Mikewem, and editor behavior, enforcing rules on sources and neutrality

Hello. I’m not sure this is the right thing to do, and every attempt at dispute resolution I’ve tried backfires, so there seems to be harm in trying. But, I don’t know what else to do. I’ve been wondering for a while what administrators do, especially when a consensus seems very unaligned with the polices and guidelines, and increasingly, when a conclusion (not assumption!) of bad faith seems unavoidable. I don’t understand why complaining about co-editors is expected to be public, and don’t like it. There are good reasons formal complaints about others are treated as confidential in work and other sites. I don’t see a way to message the administration privately, so it looks like this is the method.

One big problem is that I tried to use a noticeboard for dispute resolution, and it resulted in people who read that board jumping into the content dispute. One editor, LWG, made a beeline for the article (Israelites) and reverted me, while making no contribution in the “Talk” tab. My edit was a revert of a new addition Mikewem made adding a quote of Moses as a citation, but LWG claimed I made a new change without consensus—I had restored the consensus version (at that time). Another editor, Cdjp1, did something similar.

The interactive process itself is plagued by the usual patterns of people treating disagreements like power struggles. It’s like a political argument on Reddit or Facebook, not people working together to solve problems. The content dispute should be minor: A summary of the Bible as saying the Israelites became a nation in Egypt (the biblical narrative doesn’t say that; Moses does and God promises it). Mikewem and others were insisting that quotes of Moses and God from the Bible are valid citations. I objected to using God’s promise as a reliable source, and this was one response: “There’s a large amount of quotes we could take from Prophets that say something to the effect of ‘the words of God are true’. For thousands of years, and continuing through the modern era, the overwhelming consensus of scholars from across different religions and cultures have looked to phrases like these to support the idea that within the framework of the literary narrative, the things God says are true in the context of the narrative.” Later, the biblical citation became a quote of Moses. (Currently the proposed source is the Jewish Study Bible).

It is impossible to believe Mikewem is acting in good faith. They keeps misrepresenting concerns, accusing me of personal attacks and deleting my comments, and accusing me of edit warring. I’ve made two edits to the article “Israelites,” the second was the revert of non-consensus addition of Moses as source. I don’t know how it was technically possible, but on RSN they deleted some of my comments and inserted “personal attack removed.” I can’t undo this using the “Reply” option, and don’t know how to edit source code. I don’t believe I made personal attacks, and I certainly don’t believe I said anything more combative than their multiple comments about me.

Some typical examples what I mean about Mikewem’s conduct:

• 1. On my homepage, they accused: “your pattern of making personal attacks and casting aspersions…If, for whatever reason, you are not able to immediately cease your pattern of disruption, then our procedures say that the dispute should be moved to WP:ANI.”
• 2. They deleted two of my comments at the RSN and templated them as “personal attacks.” One was clarifying for another editor who said what; I said “You seem to be describing Mikewem and his supporters,” because the editor thought I was saying those things. The other was an explanation of why I think a source is biased (“for the same reasons Mikewem would probably object to something titled The Islamic Guide….”) If those are personal attacks, then the discussion is overflowing with personal attacks by everyone.
• 3. Under the article “Talk” tab, Mikewem said about me: At RSN, they promised to “needlessly protract” this. What I actually said was that their new source wasn’t reliable, so dispute resolution would be needlessly protracted.
• 4. Describing my two edits as “repeated removals” and “these repeated deletions of summaries of Bible text” and “approaching what we call edit warring.” (My 2nd revert was of the new addition of Moses as a source for Mikewem’s own summary.) Here is my 2nd (and last) edit, after they added Deuteronomy as a citation.

There have been smaller, similar problems on other articles. I spent an hour researching and writing a new section for the “Odyssey” article, and an editor, Gawaon, deleted the entire thing with no interaction under the “Talk” tab. I was so upset at having an hour of work completely cancelled that I reverted his revert, probably breaking a rule. A matter on “Jesus” that seems straightforward also resulted in completely ineffective dispute resolution, and reverts without real explanation. I anticipated “Jesus” would be difficult, and prone to a biased consensus, but I also expected Wikipedia would have a way of overriding popularity contests.

So, regarding behavior, is there a rule against people who are supposed to provide dispute resolution from jumping into the dispute? To prevent them from reverting you without comment? I found rules on using “Twinkle,” which have not been followed at all. How can anyone trust dispute resolution, if the neutral resolvers become involved?

I’ve invested a lot of time researching and writing in the Judaism section of Middlesbrough, the subject of patriarchy in Homeric literature, created one article, and have another one pending. Attempting to be productive and positive, but have probably spent more time dealing with disingenuous editors and power-struggling over a few sentence fragments. I could have created a new article in the time it took to write this. Is there a way for administrators to enforce the rules, when popularity contests suck the life out of contributing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban Mevsherd from Judaism and allow them to edit in areas where they have the ability to be productive. (No prejudice against other suggestions that may come from other editors regarding other topics that Mevsherd may not have the ability to edit constructively in. I think something weird happened at a Jesus rfc but I don’t have any knowledge of it beyond that). Mikewem (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe extend that to a topic ban from Religion Mikewem (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Mevsherd it’s not too late to read WP:BOOMERANG and withdraw this. I would be okay with a withdraw and I can’t speak for Cdjp, but I would bet they would be ok with a withdraw. Mikewem (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You should stop replying to anyone except to provide links of supposed wrong doing. No one will be allowed to brute force their way into silencing a content 'foe'. Not you, not anyone, not by any group or by a singleton editor. Bullies get bullied back down into submission, so be mindful of that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ll grab diffs for points 1-4 Mikewem (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban is heavy handed for a new editor, and I did not mean to suggest an indef. It’s possible a logged warning could do the trick in this case, but it appears they have an awful lot to learn about sourcing and OR. I will pull diffs. Mikewem (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I think Mevsherd should be either topic banned from Religion until they reach 1,000 edits or they should be given a logged warning, due to the evidence they provided against themself of a general WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in points 1-4, as backed by SuperGoku’s diffs (thank you for your work pulling those). Ongoing responses from Mevsherd here continue to display a general battlegroundy attitude.

To me, the most egregious personal attack was accusing another editor (me) of specific religious bigotry without any evidence or reasoning behind the accusation. Mikewem would probably object to something titled The Islamic Guide... We simply cannot have editors in the Religion space speak to each other that way. Mikewem (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good example of antagonistic and semi-dishonest interactions, and could be used as a study. What I actually said with context: "The Jewish Study Bible strikes me obviously biased, for the same reasons Mikewem would probably object to something titled The Islamic Guide...." If it is " bigotry" to think an overtly religious source is biased, then I must have been accusing myself of "religious bigotry" too. I was just trying to illustrate my objection to the proposed source. Accusing someone of personal attacks, while deleting the context of their comment, is really antagonistic. Mevsherd (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a book published by one of the leading academic publishers, authored by a team of specialists/experts in textual analysis and criticism, based on an English translation created by an interdenominational team of academic scholars and rabbis. As was previously explained, this is a prime example of something being a RS for citation, to which you responded saying that it can't be used because it is not facts but interpretations. You now claim that a book discussing what is written in the bible, being cited for the text of the bible, can't be used because this makes it an overtly religious source. You are showing, that despite your multiple prior claims of having read and fully understood RS, you in fact do not understand it.

I would also like to know how using this academic work is an overtly religious source which you are saying we shouldn't use, when you have requested multiple times that we cite text directly to the bible, while not providing any information of which bible you want it cited to? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

“Semi-dishonest” from above is another personal attack Mikewem (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I take the stand that I do not bring people to these boards generally (an extreme case may occur one day, but that is not today), so I would not seek a BOOMERANG. The community can decide what action is necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines has Mevsherd violated and on what diff links you will provide that demonstrate over this time?

Suggesting a topcic ban without evidence is, respectfully, really bad to do. You should only argue on merit here and data, not vibes. Why should he be banned? Provide real evidence before making any such call or it can WP:BOOMERANG right at your noggin. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Now, Cdjp1 is hounding me at the Odyssey article, and undoing my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odyssey&diff=1353870485&oldid=1353854638 Mevsherd (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talkpage, and in my edit summary, you should not be conducting your own comparative analysis of different translations, and you should not be citing text to a pirate site that hosts multiple copyrighted works in full. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Mevsherd, can I ask what you mean by Another editor, Cdjp1, did something similar? As I have not edited any of the content of that paragraph, only Wikilinked to the publisher Eerdmans in one of the citations. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to note that especially when a consensus seems very unaligned with the polices and guidelines seems to pull from here Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Biased_and_Independent_Sources, where, considering the statements made throughout the discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_God_a_Reliable_Source? and Talk:Jesus#RfC_on_what_most_Christians_believe, the consensus that seems very unaligned with the polices and guidelines in Mevsherd's opinion is the consensus that we should be using secondary sources written by known specialists/experts and published by reputable academic presses. An example being "the Jewish Study Bible" that they mention here which is published by Oxford University Press and is written by three recognised specialists in Jewish textual criticism and analysis, Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, with Michael Fishbane as a consulting editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment A topic ban seems too extreme to me for a new editor who genuinely is trying to improve WP, and already has a history of good edits alongside the controversial ones. I do see a heavy-handedness in their interactions with editors who dispute their POV / the edits they wish to make, and an unwillingness (at times) to cede points or compromise in any way with dissenters. But this can be coached before resorting to a topic ban. As for Mikewem's comment re: the Talk:Jesus RfC - yes, there likely are some problematic edits there, including two that, in my opinion, effectively invalidated the RfC by discouraging dissenting participation, including mine. The first showed an assumption of bad faith: "[effective consideration of the topic] is looking impossible due to editor ideology". The second possibly chilled opposing conversation: "I will probably take the original question to a noticeboard as soon as the RfC is concluded". (Note that the latter comment is not immediately problematic: it depends upon which noticeboard was intended here.) However, we all get frustrated - myself included - and I don't see a pattern of intentionally problematic behavior that cannot be coached prior to a topic ban. In my opinion, Mevsherd's desire to improve WP is clear.

Note that in all of this, I have not tried to analyze any other involved editor's behavior, so cannot speak to actions by Mikewem or Cdjp1. Unfortunately I must (mostly) step away from this conversation due to simultaneous family health and financial issues. I apologize for that. But I did want to speak in Mevsherd's defense, to make clear that, despite our past interactions, I do not believe a topic ban is warranted. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the only one asking for a topic ban is the person being reported here, so that is not going anywhere if there is a lack of evidence. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd, we'd like to see diffs that show us what you're referring to. We get that you're very new here, but in general we can't understand what you're seeing unless you show us. Do you know how to create a diff?

In general also: writing short is a crucial skill not just here on noticeboards but in Wikipedia discussions in general. Long explanations are difficult for other editors. When you write a complaint, edit it down to the shortest it can be that gets your point across. It takes longer to write short, but it's worth the extra time and work. Valereee (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

⛏⛑ Did a bit of digging, but I don't feel like digging too much farther. Here are the diffs for #1-#4:

• #1: Special:Diff/1353825620, which mentions 1353824521;
• #2: 1353831132, which modified 1353654577 and 1353824521;
• #3: 1353814131, which mentions 1353642423;
• #4: 1353381479, 1353352200, and 1353350629

--Super Goku V (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Super Goku V, for doing that digging. I think that's most of it. Regarding the Odyssey, and Cdjp1 following me from RSN to revert me, see also: Talk:Odyssey#Patriarchy, female characters, etc. Mevsherd (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking through your recent contributions, the same issues are repeated across multiple articles. Making claims without sources, using bad sourcing, arguing that secondary sources shouldn't be used because they are biased and don't offer facts, but interpretations. Then when challenged, you point to P&Gs, while seeming to misapply them, such as asking others to provide RS, but stating that sources that meet the criteria of RS are in fact not RS because you believe the guideline to be against the use of secondary sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

All that being said, it's simply just part of the learning journey. You have made plenty of good contributions, and everyone who starts out editing makes mistakes, learns, and becomes a better editor. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

When I search for your name in the last 500 edits of Israelites and Odyssey, there is nothing prior to my request for dispute resolution at the RSN. There is no history of any interest in those article. You have been commenting at the RSN in other topics, however.

Your only contribution to Israelites was to oppose my view in Talk, often sarcastically.

Your only edit to Odyssey was to delete what I wrote, most of it referenced. Your reason was that one cite was bad, but the source was already in the article's references and it would have taken 3 seconds to fix. You also deleted two other citations. You deleted two sample translations and a reference, claiming they were my original research, but they were nothing but the translations being discussed in the article.

So, I think you are harassing me. Mevsherd (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

"So, I think you are harassing me" is failing to assume good faith WP:AGF and making personal attacks. This is the sort of thing that is going to get people's backs up.

It is frustrating when we write something and it gets reverted or deleted; I understand that. But that is part of how WP operates (and has to operate, given that anyone can edit). See WP:BRD.

in the specific Odyssey edit, I see a lot of citations of blogs and that's not really appropriate sourcing for a topic that has plenty of academic discussion. Furius (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not "assuming" anything when it is based on experience and data, which I just provided. Mevsherd (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, you did not see "a lot of citations of blogs." There weren't even a lot of citations. Mevsherd (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

sarcastically, can you provide a link to this, as what I did was present quoted reliable sources with no sarcasm. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Seeing that you made poor edits, and had poor justifications for those edits, peaked my curiosity to see if this was a wider issue than just the one that firs came to my attention. As I have stated this was in fact the case. So I edited the Odyssey article that engaged in OR. Now, while you could disagree with my assessment of it being a poor addition, the fact that three separate editors have disagreed with it would indicate that there may in fact be a problem. This is repeated across the other articles, where multiple independent editors have disagreed with your edits, but you choose to revert every revert of your addition, while making no changes to the content of what you added to address the concerns highlighted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

And if you wish to add it to the evidence of harassing, today I edited your draft article on Second-generation Holocaust Syndrome as it is an interesting topic and something we should have an article on as there are plenty of sources. I adjusted the structure, added some additional information, fixed the broken references, and added multiple additional references, after which it has now been moved to mainspace. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It does strike me as very bad form when, in a discussion where an editor is worried you might be hounding them, to follow them into drafts they've made. I know WP:OWN, but come on Placeholderer (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is determined as such, then the corrective actions can be agreed upon by community and I shall follow them. Feel free to review the edits, talk pages, and other discussions to determine a conclusion as to whether I have fallen afoul of the relevant Policies and Guidelines. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you yourself acknowledge anything being wrong or questionable with it? Placeholderer (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe I have fallen afoul of the relevant policy, but that may well be an oversight on my part, and if so, the community can and should correct me. Hence why I brought up the fact I had greatly edited the article, so others can judge me as necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

A prompt trout I mean this constructively but I really don't think that's a good answer. The relevant policy, for the record, is WP:HOUNDING, which says Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. There's no rush to edit drafts that aren't, like, BLP violations. Following someone into a draft they made, during a discussion where they say they feel HOUNDed by you, is, at best, callous and inconsiderate Placeholderer (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Then I apologise for the editing and draft's subsequent move to article space. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Is it a coincidence that I mentioned here that I'm interested in gender in Homeric literature, an editor's last two edits were to blank and revert my contributions to gender and Homeric literature, in two different articles? While making no contribution to the Talk discussions I started for the articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iliad&diff=1354146115&oldid=1353659729

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iliad#Patriarchy_as_a_theme

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odyssey&diff=1354144347&oldid=1354092917

I brought to your attention editors following me around from RSN, and the result was an editor following me around from here. Now I'm getting paranoid about other things. I submitted a new article with ten sources, both peer-reviewed academic articles and popular articles, all compliant with the rules on sourcing, and it was rejected with boiler-plate about sourcing. This place is a waste of time. Mevsherd (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You keep spelling homoerotic wrong. EEng 20:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This joke probably would have been better received in 1994, but simply making gayness the butt of a joke doesn't work in 2026. ~2026-29381-31 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

He's steeped in gayness. Or at least he seems to be under that impression. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @AirshipJungleman29: as Mevsherd is accusing them here and here of following them around and harassing Mevsherd. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could say I followed them from Odyssey to Iliad, as after removing the poor-quality material on the former, I had a look to see whether a) it was recently introduced and b) its author had added similarly poor-quality material elsewhere. I was not surprised to see that was the case. I must, however, apologise for not noticing the talk page discussion; I’ll add my two-penny worth to that shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

When I search for your name on this page, I get a dozen hits. When I search the last 500 edits on the Odyssey (goes back 4 years), I see one minor edit a year ago, and nothing on the Iliad in over four years and 500 edits.

Your only edit to the Iliad was to delete what I wrote, with no helpful explanation or comment in Talk, yet I had created a section in Talk for discussing the project.

Your only edit to the Odyssey was also to delete what I wrote. Your edit commentary was "largely unsourced," yet you deleted a source (some of the references were earlier in the article).

If you deleted every comment you thought wasn't sufficiently sourced, without even bothering to ask about it in Talk, you would delete half of Wikipedia. It very clearly violates basic guidelines and common sense about collaboration. Mevsherd (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, you made the addition (bold), it was then reverted by someone who disagreed (Revert), so it should then be taken to the talk page to Discuss the matter, where the addition should not be re-added until the discussion is concluded. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Pre-emptively adding a talk page section does not mean that everyone who subsequently edits the article is wrong to not check the talk page and every archive thereof (or else I'd have to call out Mevsherd for not checking the peer review for Odyssey!). Looking at their edit history, I think their focus on comparatively popular pages may have given the impression that talk pages discussions are relatively common on Wikipedia; by and large, they are not, and we get by working with implicit consensus on 99% of issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem is not reverting or deleting, it is going to a page looking for reasons to revert or delete a particular editor. Mevsherd (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the status of this? I don't think I understand the point of this noticeboard. The administration is not addressing the concerns, but not archiving the discussion either. This attempt to seek dispute resolution became its own example. Part of the problem was that asking for help at the RSN had a retaliatory effect, and so I came here, which created an additional retaliatory effect. So, people can't safely ask for help. Does the administration care?

In this case, I can't even edit. I can't disengage from people I need to disengage from, if, wherever I go, they follow. Mevsherd (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

So, now Cdjp1 has followed me to the Iliad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iliad&action=history

I cannot disengage from people I need to disengage from, if they follow me everywhere I go. There are 7.1 million articles, and I bet 6.9 million could use better sourcing, but this person just keeps following me. They've now edited 3 of the 5 projects I've started since I started editing. It doesn't matter if the edits are benign: one thing leads to another, I need to disengage from editors I find antagonistic. If administrators are going to do absolutely nothing, then archive the thread so I know to try something else (or quit). Mevsherd (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

And if you cared to actually provide a link to show the actual differences, you will see I have only formatted references and added some maintenance tags outside of the section you added. Though as can also be seen from the talk page discussion, three separate editors have flagged the same concerns of OR and poor sourcing as others had flagged with your additions to the article for the Odyssey. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions are equally as under scrutiny as anyone else’s. If you’re really worried about editor safety, take it to WP:ARBCOM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Basically from my viewpoint, your evidence didn't have diffs to prove your claims and you didn't follow-up when I gave the diffs for points #1-#4. (Plus you never responded to Valereee's question of if you knew how to make diffs. Which if you didn't, my comment gave you some of the formatting for them, but instead your reply to me, I think, was a link to a discussion without diffs.)

On that note, there has been some BOOMERANG requests, but the evidence there seems mainly limited to the diffs for #1-#4, so that seems to not be moving forward.

Finally, on your WP:HOUNDING claims: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (...) The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. If users are following you for non-constructive reasons, then it is likely a retaliation issue. If users are following for constructive reasons, then it isn't an issue of retaliation. (At a glance, I see that you added ~5% to the size of Iliad from the 7th to the 16th. Without diffs, it is easier to assume that the changes made by other editors were constructive given how significant your changes appear to be.)

If you believe the edits are non-constructive, then posts the diffs and they can be reviewed. Otherwise, if you realize the edits are constructive and thus not HOUNDING, then it might be better to let this get archived unless you have some other evidence to provide.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The first factor in that definition is: "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing." Your analysis ignores it. Common-sense advice would be to avoid the editors in question. I cannot avoid them when they follow me. I cannot edit an article I just created, because Mikewem and Cdjp1 have taken it over. In this thread, Mikewem accused me of accusing him of "specific religious bigotry" and repeated personal attacks--I should avoid Mikewem, right? Cdjp1 has followed me to 5 articles since I requested help at RSN. They blanked referenced material in violation of various guidelines; AirshipJungleman29 blanked the vestigial referenced material, and then went to Iliad to blank more (I gave a diff). So, I should avoid this group, but I can't, because they keep following me around. Mevsherd (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You can edit Second-generation Holocaust Syndrome, and there is plenty of work to do. They blanked referenced material in violation of various guidelines, citations linking to pirate sites, and text that multiple independent editors have highlighted as containing OR, have poor sourcing, and being potentially undue. This has occurred independently across multiple articles. You have claimed that such concerns are wrong, but have not convinced any other editor that their concerns are wrong. It would be in fact great if you engaged on the talk pages providing sources to support the inclusion of what you have added, instead of handwaving that such is "prominently discussed in sources" and expecting other editors to provide those sources for you. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Less ignored and more that no overridingly constructive reason is superseding. If the edit are for a constructive reason, then the disruption can be justified. Common sense to me is that users who are following another user should be cautious that their edits are constructive to avoid risking a sanction for a HOUNDING violation.

You also didn't post a diff, but the history of an article. See HELP:DIFF for details on how to make a diff.

I will say that if you are trying to avoid them, then you cannot be punished via HOUNDING. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I posted these, and they are diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odyssey&diff=1353870485&oldid=1353854638

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iliad&diff=1354146115&oldid=1353659729

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odyssey&diff=1354144347&oldid=1354092917

Cdjp1 is now telling me I'm wrong about content at "Iliad."

Harassment that results from dispute resolution will deter people from asking for help. Mevsherd (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Where I stated you were wrong was on two claims you made about two sections, where you claimed one was only being cited to the Iliad, and the other was only cited to Lendon, and I pointed out how in both cases this was wrong as the sections included multiple other sources. Comment here. And here is a link to the article at the time of your comment so people can check how many sources are referenced in the sections "Depiction of infantry combat" and "Influence on classical Greek warfare". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Per this comment, while the engagement on the talk page was in response to the request in this discussion to discuss the matter on the talk page, I have nothing more to say to Mevsherd or on this matter. Ping me if a decision is made. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Your initial post here lacks diffs, but I was not being specific enough. That is on me and my wording.

Some of this is content concerns and some of this is hounding concerns. The noticeboard tries to avoid dealing with just content concerns since content disputes are almost always better resolved on article talk pages. It does seem like three users at least are following your edits, but again it seems like they have an overridingly constructive reason for their edits. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Replying since I was mentioned here. First of all, I don't think sanctions are currently needed for any of the parties involved. I became involved in this matter after I saw Mevsherd's post at RSN. I have previously interacted with Mevsherd at the talk page for Jesus. In both cases I have found Mevsherd's comments difficult to follow, but as far as I can tell they want a stricter standard of sourcing for certain claims about Christianity-related issues. I feel their behavior sometimes verges into "bring me a rock" territory, but I believe they are sincerely trying to improve the wiki. I expressed my assessment of the Israelite sourcing situation in the RSN discussion. Since the content dispute appeared to be ongoing, I reverted to what I understood to be the version that existed prior to the dispute. If I mis-assessed that I apologize. I don't have a personal stake in that dispute. Let me know if I can help in any other way. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 06:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have stagnated, and in my view, I do not see a clear direction forward. Any updates from admins or others? Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What I see here is a new editor making some permissible mistakes as they learn about the consensus process and sourcing requirements, and some more experienced editors showing them varying levels of grace as they learn. The content discussions on the article talk pages seem to be progressing satisfactorily. IMO everyone should consider this an extension of rope and go about their business. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 16:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Abductive behavior: ICANTHEARYOU, BUILDWP, CAUTIOUS, BOTREQUIRE, etc

I'm reporting User:Abductive for improper behavior. They are an industrious editor with over 136,000 edits - many of them copy edits, often performed with semi-automated tools. I'm sure 99% of the edits are fine, but sometimes they damage articles. The damaging edits are not themselves fatal – after all, we all make mistakes. The problem is that they refuse to admit of any ill effects; they dig their heels in and deny any sort of error. My discussions with them are in two locations:

1. User_talk:Abductive#Questions_on_changes_to_Nile_article - Mostly here
2. Talk:Nile#Response_to_a_user_question - A little bit here

I tried to explain, repeatedly, to them how their edits are impacting articles. I expected some sort of reply as "Ah yes, I see. I'll fix it. Sorry about the inconvenience." Nope. This user refuses to engage in productive dialog or even answer simple questions (see link #1 above). The specific behavioral guidelines involved are:

• WP:BOTREQUIRE - Requires all tool/bot edits to be "harmless"
• WP:CAUTIOUS and WP:ASSISTED - Requires consulting with other editors (e.g. on Talk pages) to obtain consensus before making significant changes
• WP:ICANTHEARYOU - They fail to answer simple questions in Talk page discussions, even when the questions are aimed at moving the discussion forward and come to a resolution.
• WP:UNRESPONSIVE - Requires edit summaries to be informative & accurate. Their summaries are vague; and some edits contain scores of changes of several different kinds.
• [I'm not sure what WP guideline says this:] - Abductive fails to validate tool edits (to ensure they are harmless) before publishing them
• WP:Here to build an encyclopedia - Abductive is very defensive and in denial about any criticisms of their edits.

Again, the issue here is not the damaging edits (we all make mistakes sometimes) it is the refusal to acknowledge the mistakes, which results in time-wasting dialogs with other editors. I first noticed damaging edits in the Nile article here:

• In this edit the edit summary was a vague "WP:MOS stuff. See WP:RIVERS for guidance." That edit contained scores of various changes. In one change, they mistakenly thought a lat/long coordinate with 3 meter precision was pointing to a vaguely located source of a big river, so they rounded the coordinate to about 30 meters precision. Normally, that would be correct, based on WP:OPCOORD. However, this particular coordinate was pointing to a small 2m x 2m monument. I had to take time to point out the mistake. They were argumentative, but after I spent a lot of time, they finally fixed it.

They suggested that they have rounded thousands of lat/long coordinates. I was curious how many times they improperly rounded the coordinate of small objects that benefit from a high precision (say, 2m to 10m). I realize that 99% of all lat/long coordinates in WP point to large objects (lakes, forests, cities, etc), so the rounding Abductive was doing would normally be okay. But after randomly reviewing only five of their edits from 2026 (that mentioned WP:OPCOORD in the edit summary) I found another damaging lat/long edit:

• The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier article: In this edit rounded a lat/long coordinate from 3m precision to 30m precision. Apparently they thought it was a large building? But a quick glance at the article plainly says it is a "... small cottage, less than 15 m² in area...". This 3m x 5m shack is Cabanon de vacances. Then they apparently looked at their rounded coordinate in a map app, and saw that it was not pointing at any building. So they then made a second edit that moved the coordinate 31 meters onto a nearby building. The problem is that they chose the wrong building. The correct building is 24 meters southeast from the building where they placed the coordinate. That error is still there today.

The error rate in my tiny sample set was 1 in 5, or 20%. It is clear that Abductive is rounding coordinates very hastily without carefully examining the article and the sources to verify that high precision is not beneficial. Again, the errors are not the problem. It is that this editor is highly defensive, and refuses to admit any possibility of improvement. How many high-precision coordinates have they improperly rounded? We'll never know, because they are so defensive that it is impossible to collaborate and investigate.

Turning to the other damaging type of edit I observed: I craft my citation templates very carefully, using multi-line layouts, so future editors can easily read and update the WP markup. The multi-line approach is rather rare: I'm sure fewer than 1% of editors use it (but I highly recommend it!). Abductive ran a tool that collapsed the full citation into a single line, losing all the formatting work I had done. No big deal; but after I undid the change and politely pointed out how it was not a beneficial edit (as is required for all tool-based edits) they again went into defensive/denial mode, writing "How can choosing "tidy" on a widely available tool ... be considered "damaging"? ... Most of the time that I and many other editors improve (our opinion) the formatting from "crammed" or "vertical" to "tidy", nobody complains. So no disruption occurred." [boldface emphasis added]. Here again, the edit is not the issue, it is the total and complete failure to listen to another editor and arrogantly dismiss valid concerns. Note the blatant falsehoods: they wrote "nobody complains" (even after I complained); and wrote "no disruption occurred" (even tho I explained how much time it took me to track down the issue and remedy it).

I realize that – in the grand scheme of ANI – this behaviorial issue ranks as a 2 on a scale of 10. But I think we need to hold experienced editors (17 years, 136,000 edits) to a high standard of cooperation and civility. Noleander (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, so a one sentence summary of the problem is: ____________________________________________________________ ?

And a one sentence summary of your proposed solution is: ____________________________________________________________ ?

Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 04:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have tightened up the coordinates of the cottage mentioned above. As to the other issues, I responded to the user's concerns, and at no time did I revert the formatting of the citations once they said that they wanted vertical formatting. I fail to see how I "damaged" the Nile article. When I happened by the article on 17 April 2026, somebody had removed most of the coordinates, so I tried to fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Problem: User Abductive makes damaging edits to articles, and when asked about the edits, they get defensive and deny that the edits were damaging, making it difficult to determine how many articles have been impacted.

Proposed solution: Abductive should be reminded that guidelines prohibit running semi-automated tools that are harmful to articles, that they should be more cooperative in discussions about their damaging edits, and that they should productively engage in efforts to evaluate the magnitude of the damages. Noleander (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This and your comment on the talk page where you say "Can you provide some edits here where you changed coordinates in other articles? Maybe I can glance at those and get some assurance that you are not damaging lat/long values for well-defined objects." concern me. It feels like you're expecting them to provide evidence against themselves and then putting forward the charge that they're being insufficiently enthusiastic in doing so. Morwen (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Morwen - You might be taking that comment out of context. At that point, I had discovered that the editor was (apparently) rounding lat/long coordinates in a robotic manner, sometimes deleting valid data. I spent several hours of my time trying to explain the issue to them, but was met with denial and stonewalling. It was like pulling teeth.

I figured looking at some other edits would be useful, but I'm busy IRL and didn't know how to find OPCOORD type changes in a history of 136,000 changes, so I asked them to point me to some of those changes. They refused. So I spent more of my own time looking, and found some edit summaries included "OPCOORD". I looked at five and found that 1 of the 5 also had the damaging round-off problem.

If the editor has made 1,000 coordinate roundings, and if, say, 5% are improper, that is 50 articles that have been damaged. I'm not planning on spending any more of my time trying to track them down. But at least I've raised the issue. We are at ANI because a cooperative, civil editor would willingly help other editors understand the history and nature of their edits. Noleander (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• How come you, Noleander, tell us why you think that ludicrous over-precision in the coordinates was not an issue that needed fixing? No prior permission was needed for this edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger - What "ludicrous over-precision" are you referring to? The Nile article or the The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier article? The Nile edit rounded the latitude of a 2m x 2m monument from 3.915146 degrees to 3.9151 degrees (degraded 0.3 meter precision to 30 m). The Corbusier edit rounded the longitude of a 3m x 5m shack from 48.2 seconds to 48 seconds (degraded 2.2 meters precision to 22 meters). The prior values were not "ludicrous", but rather were appropriate for the size of the object. Those edits do contain other lat/long values that were over-precise (0.001 meters, etc) and there is no issue with rounding those.

  The problem is that the rounding the precision of small objects (that have a valid precision around 1m to 5m) to 20m or 30m precision is damaging to the article for readers and future editors, because it removes valid data. Note that WP:OPCOORD explicitly provides for precisions of 1m to 5m: "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  Your write "No prior permission was needed for this edit." I'm not sure what you are saying. I never said that prior permission was required for applying OPCOORD to articles: I said that when asked about the changes, the editor was defensive, combative, and refused to engage in productive discussion about the issue.

  However, the changes to the citation template markup were done by a semi-automated tool, and the editor does have a responsibility to ensure that those edits are not harmful before they publish the changes. The editor failed to take those steps. For example, I would expect the editor to (a) First examine the article and see if the cites use multi-line layout; if so, do not collapse to single line. Or (b) Post a note on the article Talk page proposing to collapse the citations, and asking if anyone minds, etc. Noleander (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yuor own post to Abductive's talk page says that he changed 0.3598541896 to 0.3598. That might not be ideal, but it is a distinct improvement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger - In both the Featured articles/lists that Abductive damaged, the single edit under discussion changed several lat/long coords. Many of those coords were for large objects 100m in size or greater, and rounding to 30 meters is fine. But in both of the articles, there was one small object that was 2 to 5 meters in size and they improperly rounded to about 30 meters. Those small objects are the important ones. Per WP:OPCOORD "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  The comment by me that you quote above: " ... 0.3598541896 to 0.3598." was early in my analysis of what was going on, and I was trying to understand the purpose of the edits. After it became clear that they generally round all coordinates, I then realized that some small objects were also rounded, and from that point forward, the discussion focused on the small objects .. they were 2m to 5m in size, yet the precision was degraded to 20 to 30m. I agree that rounding to 30m is appropriate for large objects. Noleander (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who is the intended audience of people for whom we should include lat/long coordinates to an accuracy of 0.3m in an encyclopedia article? --JBL (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll - I never said that any WP locations should have 0.3m precision. You perhaps got that value from my note above: "[they] rounded the latitude of a 2m x 2m monument from 3.915146 degrees to 3.9151 degrees (degraded 0.3 meter precision to 30 m). In that comment I did not intend to suggest that 0.3m precision was ideal or correct; my point was that 30m was wrong. Abductive should have rounded that coord to 3.91514 (about 2 to 3m precision).

  Articles discussing small objects (under about 10m in size) should use a precision of roughly 1m to 5m (provided that sources support such a precision). That is endorsed by WP:OPCOORD which says "In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°.

  Wikignomes that want to enforce WP:OPCOORD are obligated to spend time studying (a) the size of the object; and (b) the associated sources before they round the coordinate value to a precision larger than, say, 1 meter. If they are not doing that research, they should not make the change. Noleander (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who is the intended audience of people for whom we should include lat/long coordinates to an accuracy of 3m in an encyclopedia article? --JBL (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayBeeEll: - The 3 meter value originates in WP:OPCOORD which says "To specify a particular point in the city, such as a building, generally requires precision down to degrees-minutes-seconds or d.dddd° if decimal degrees are used. In the case of objects such as fountains or statues, it may be necessary to use d°m's.s" or d.ddddd°. Higher precisions should be avoided, as they greatly exceed the accuracy of civilian GPS and online mapping services. (Using 4 m accuracy as an estimate for civilian GPS...". That guideline endorses 1/10 arc second ( d°m's.s) which is about 3 meters of latitude; or 1 to 3 meters of longitude). And it endorse 0.00001 degree (d.ddddd) which is about 1 meter latitude, under 1 meter longitude. And it mentions 4 meters.

  I do not know what the authors of that guideline were thinking when they specified a range of roughly 1 to 4 meters. They mention fountains and statues: maybe they were thinking of a tourists or explorers who read an encyclopedia and wanted to find an object, such a small headstone in a crowded cemetery? or an object hidden in a dense forest or jungle? Or a small shack in a neighborhood crowded with shacks?

  Or maybe they were not thinking of an encyclopedia reader at all, and were basing it on the best current GPS capabilities (" ... they greatly exceed the accuracy of civilian GPS ..." ), in which case if GPS or its descendants get more accurate, WP:OPCOORD may be updated to recommend even smaller precisions?

  Or maybe the authors of WP:OPCOORD were simply trying to include normal geographic facts that any curious encyclopedia reader may want, such as readers who want to know the elevation of a mountain top they will never visit?

  As I say, I have no idea what the authors of WP:OPCOORD were thinking. Should we post a query on that Talk page and inquire? Noleander (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Probably the same people that would like to see Mount Fuji is 3,776 m (12,388 ft) and not find it rounded to 3,780 m (12,400 ft), 3,800 m (12,500 ft), or 4,000 m (13,000 ft). CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 06:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Er, people who want precise, correct information? What do you try to achieve with that question? If you disagree that we should have that kind of precision for small, precisely locatable objects, then perhaps say so instead of using passive-agressive fake questions? Why wouldn't we want to give the exact coordinates for something? To take an example not included in the current dispute, why wouldn't you give a 3m precise coordinate for the Peter Pan statue? What is actually gained by reducing this to 30m? Fram (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I do not find it burdensome to read one or two or three extra digits. It is not as if I remember the extra or even entire coordinates. For that I use an encyclopedia. Oh, right. Scratch that. At the least, Wikipedia, by nature of its prominence, ought require the greatest useful precision accuracy supports. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC) —

  At the end of the day, there's not actually a real problem with overly precise coordinates, especially not for small objects. Coordinates on Wikipedia and sister sites are not scientific data where excessive precision could be different from the real value. If an object spans from 12.00010 to 12.00100 degrees, values of 12.0005, 12.00051, and 12.00051238 will all place the user inside its boundaries - but rounding to 12.001 will be on the edge of the object, and 12.000 outside it entirely.

  If the display of >5 decimal digits is objectionable, it should be possible to modify {{coord}} to only display a maximum of 5 digits. But Abductive's personal crusade to reduce the number of digits stored in the wikitext has resulted in degraded accuracy, no benefit to users, and numerous conflicts with others (including myself). He has attempted to unilaterally change guidance to suit his preferences. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Fram: What do you try to achieve with that question? I try to achieve an understanding of an issue that is relevant to this dispute but not well addressed in the original post, IMO. (If only there were a guideline relevant to this situation.) --JBL (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Still no idea what you actually tried to achieve though. Do you really wanted to know who the audience is that wants accurate information? Perhaps you can enlighten us to why we shouldn´t provide accurate coordinates when possible and relevant? What audience would we serve with less precise coordinates then? Fram (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Let me point you again, explicitly, to WP:AGF. N wrote a complaint about A's behavior; I personally did not find it clear from the complaint exactly why the behavior was supposed to be problematic, and so I asked a question about it. I then asked again because the first answer didn't help me with my point of confusion. You have now written three quite aggressive messages about this, including the bizarre accusation that I have engaged in "bashing" anyone. It is certainly true that this thread is going off-topic, but it seems to me that this is being driven by your demand that I justify asking a straightforward question in a community forum. Maybe you have read something into my message that wasn't there; if so, I invite you to simply stop extending this line of discussion. If you want separately to write me a message of the form "Hey sorry that got so heated; I think what set me off about your questions was [whatever goes here]. I am acutally curious about [one question]", you are welcome on my talk-page for further discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I share Fram's concerns: your questions were confusing and not helpful, from my point of view. I also feel that it is time to return to the important question of how to resolve the top-level issues of this ANI, rather than belaboring the 0.3 vs 3 vs 30 meter question. Noleander (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  At ANI, points not in the originating post arise. Of various magnitudes. Some of the points may help the subject editor's insight. Precision requirements ought to be explicit. And in this case could be dispositive as part a decision here. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  You replied to a post where they clearly explained the issue (e.g. "The Corbusier edit rounded the longitude of a 3m x 5m shack from 48.2 seconds to 48 seconds (degraded 2.2 meters precision to 22 meters). The prior values were not "ludicrous", but rather were appropriate for the size of the object. ") so I have a hard time believing that you "did not find it clear from the complaint exactly why the behavior was supposed to be problematic". AGF is not a get-out-of-jail card you can use to ask non-productive questions. I am completely baffled that you claim to be in good faith asking who the encyclopedia audience is that may want 3m precision for the location of a 3m object. What audience would really object to have this precision and would prefer less precise coordinates? It's not as if we are discussing lengthy paragraphs of minutiae, this is about actively removing digits from coords to make them less precise for small objects, which benefits no good faith reader at all. Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Christ what an asshole. I rescind my offer to discuss this with you politely; please never interact with me again unless required to do so by Wikipedia policy. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Can we get back to the actual problem instead of the bashing of the OP by people who apparently actively want less correct information for no good reason at all? The way this ANI section has been handled really is rather terrible. Fram (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Abductive has been criticized in the past for careless handling of Citation bot. See User talk:Citation bot passim, User talk:Citation_bot/Archive_44#Blocked; huge number of bad work= additions, User talk:Citation bot/Archive 43 passim, last year on ANI, and also User talk:Folly Mox#Citation bot (from 2023). The opening lines of this section made me think it would be about that. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those additional examples. In this ANI here, I'm reporting two kinds of damage to articles: (1) semi-automated edits to citations using User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js; and (2) manual edits to lat/long coordinates. Damage type (1) is comparable to the examples you identified above involving User talk:Citation bot (Abductive runs the tool, then publishes the results without first verifying that the changes are harmless). Noleander (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

MarcRai - unsourced edits despite countless warnings

MarcRai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a user talk page full of warnings about unsourced content, including level 4 warnings… yet despite all that - . It’s either a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Usually I take some issue with Danners' viewpoints on aircraft article sourcing but this is pretty blatant- seems an attempt to run away for a few months and come back thinking we all would've forgotten about it (though some of the edits were sourced to the Airbus O&D sheet which is updated monthly so I'm not entirely sure they're incorrect). Electricmemory (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This lovely PA from last July should've been a pretty good tell he wasn't going to start caring. Electricmemory (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yikes - I missed that… maybe not quite WP:NOTHERE, as I suspect they do want to contribute… but perhaps it needs to be made clear that they need to clean up their act Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep this open in the hope they respond - @MarcRai please come to ANI to address your edits Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@MarcRai please don’t ignore this thread. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't see that they've got email linked to their account (insofar as it's not possible to email them). I'll @ them on their Talk page just in case, may as well give it a shot even if it doesn't work. Blue-Sonnet 17:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

They haven't edited since the 16th May, when this was opened... and a look at their contribution history shows they regularly take long (weeks or months) wikibreaks. Perhaps if they don't respond a mainspace block would be appropriate so that when they do return they can discuss the concerns then? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Appears they might've done that to try and avoid the warnings last time around. Electricmemory (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I've got my WP:AGF hat on, and looking at their contributions this isn't a new pattern... we see a burst of editing in early December, than a few day's break, then 15 days between the new year and their next edits in January, then anove couple weeks between January and February, then again in the middle of March... I don't think this is a malicious pattern to be honest, just an infrequent editor. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Just keeping this open Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sigh… still keeping this open Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This user edits so infrequently that I doubt they will respond while this thread is still open. Best to indef them from mainspace so that they are forced to understand sourcing policies and realize the importance of our civility policy before returning. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked from article space. Fences&Windows 22:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Editors engaged in Proxying and Meatpuppetry to circumvent deleted article

My premise is this; If several editors share a POV, and their presented evidence confirms their POV, they could share the same view simply because the facts lead them all to that POV independently. However, if several editors whose accounts are recently created share a POV, and they ALL have one very obscure claim that is verifiably false, it is strong indicator of WP:Meatpuppetry and potential WP:Proxying because they didn't verify the claim themselves.

An article titled Ichafu created on 22 March was deleted by consensus for having false sources, LLM generated text, and a few other issues. Some new editors have since been repeating a specific obscure claim related to the article that is verifiably false

The false claim: The “English, Ibo and French dictionary” (1904) and the “Ibo villiage affairs” (1947) contain a headdress, head tie, or headwrap described as “Ichafu”.

As can be seen from the archive links to the books, there is no head wear called "Ichafu" anywhere in those books. Ravenswing already pointed this out about the English–Ibo–French Dictionary that was cited the most in the deleted article, and I confirmed that "Ibo village affairs" also had no mention of the Ichafu.

A draft of that article was submitted by Esther Kings (account created 21 March 2026) who was later blocked for creating a sock

Here are the accounts which have repeated the false claim above.

• Deetailz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 22 March 2026) In the 3rd paragraph of this comment on my talk page, they say: “ichafu as far back as 1904 snd 1947 and beyond as documented in Holy Ghost Fathers English, Ibo and French Dictionary in 1904. Also in 1947 as documented in Ibo Village affairs by Margaret Green”
  
• ~2026-28907-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bizzare appearance of a temp account messing up my talk page to support Deetailz during my discussion with them. In the second to last paragraph of this comment they say: “Especially when headties are documented in Igbo-English- French dictionaries as early as 1904 as an Original Igbo Word meaning Ichafu”
  
• Oryndel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (created 9 May 2026) added both books as the sources to support Deetailz' inclusion of Ichafu in a head tie article.

I'm posting this here since SPIs to my knowledge don't exactly detect proxying or meatpuppets, but to me the behaviour is clear. Note, this is not about the validity of the topics involved, but the behaviour of the editors. Sohvyan (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if they were not socks/meats the continuous refusal to get the point, ignorance of policy and insertion of false or invented sources is more than enough for an indef. Electricmemory (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you refusing to address the actual issue in your article but keep attacking people and accusing them of Sockpuppetry for questioning the incorrect claims in your article. You accused me of being insecure and attempted to shame me for not having English as my first language. I have ALWAYS remained on the issue at hand without attacking your person and I advise you do same.

Also, if these people have been blocked, then repeatedly raising it here is irrelevant and avoiding the concerns raised in your article. I can only deduce an attempt for a monopoly of edits, attacking people’s personality for raising concerns about the claims you’re making against them to bully them into silence. There are over 30 million Igbo people in the world, so when you make a claim that attempts to erase their culture, it is natural for them to react. The deleted Ichafu article were not on grounds of being false as you claimed but for using LLM tools. The essence of Afds and deletions are to enable improvements in articles to follow Wikipedia guidelines not to ban them or related topics from Wikipedia forever.

The sources you cited claiming that there’s no documentation of Ichafu there is actually untrue. According to the 1904 Ibo-English-French dictionary, Icafo, Iciofo, and akwaisi are documented in exactly pages 112, 145, and 305 as a headcover, a hairstyle and a head kerchief. The sources further mentioned: Ibo village affairs records the use of headclothes by Igbo women in their daily life in exactly page 136, line 11, page 218, lines 24 and 27, and page 226, lines 10 and 12. Headcloth, headcover, headties means Ichafu in Igbo dictionaries just like Gele according to 1913 dictionary is recorded to mean handkerchief, headtie, napkins etc.

Please, for the sake of African history and the pursuit of knowledge, stop the deflection and the attack on people’s personality. I’m not a Sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Even so, your grounds of accusing me of Meat/Sockpuppetry applies to you too. At exactly 17:00 16th May, 2026, Electronicmemory who by the way has no presence in this entire conversation abnitio suddenly supported your claim just 7 minutes apart from your ANI complaint. Drawing from your logic, I ask: Sohvyan, does that make you Meat/Sockpuppet too? I did not commit any crime, I only raised this issue on my own, please address the issues I raised.

You claimed: “Igbo women today has adopted gele into their culture” there is no source that approves that statement. I have already narrated that. I’m not responsible for issues you have with people I don’t know.

Thank you. Deetailz (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY the English Wikipedia is not intended to be used, organized or styled as a dictionary. And baselessly accusing me of sockpuppetry on a public page meant for public discussion will not help you. I highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichafu (headdress) (2nd nomination) very carefully, because I find it hard to believe the dozens of people there are all lying. Electricmemory (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to write about Icafo, Iciofo, or akwaisi, that's great, because those are mentioned and detailed in the sources you provide. "Ichafu" however is not mentioned, anywhere, which dozens of editors have pointed out by now. Not to mention the (rather obvious) sock/meat/proxy issue. Electricmemory (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deetailz: Headcloth, headcover, headties means Ichafu in Igbo dictionaries just like Gele according to 1913 dictionary is recorded to mean handkerchief, headtie, napkins etc. This is the English Wikipedia; we are not concerned with what words mean or translate to in a foreign language. If you wish to write in a different language, please do so on the Wikipedia site for that language. Electricmemory (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologise if you understand my response as a Sockpuppetry accusation. I didn’t mean to accuse you of Sockpuppetry blatantly. I said "drawing from your logic" (referring to Sohyvan) to ask Sohyvan whether it’s proper to accuse him of Sockpuppetry just because someone else dropped a comment in support of his argument same way he’s accusing me of Sockpuppetry because of people I do not know whom I’m acting independently from. I also think your rebuttal is astounding and directly addresses Sohvyan's premise for his accusation. I raised a concern, he has refused to address my concerns but rather deflecting and attempting to link me to socks to delegitimise the concerns I raised about the content of his article: “Today Igbo women have adopted Yoruba gele into their culture”.

Also, you are raising a case of writing an article on Ichafu as per WP not Wikitionary but that is not the issue here. The issue here is the claims in his article: “ Today Igbo women has adopted Yoruba gele” that claim is not supported by any source. If he cannot provide a source for that, he should remove it. What he’s doing is drawing in unrelated issues to deviate from the subject matter, if not, I see no reason for constantly bringing in a closed AFD. The closed AFD on Ichafu has to do with errors made by probably new or amateur editors still learning the ropes. And like I said before, the purpose of AFDs and consequent delete is not to punish people or ban them forever, but rather a call to improve their articles to follow Wikipedia guidelines next time. The Ichafu article did generate a lot of tension you see there because a user announced it on X which drove people into participating in the AFD. So I’m honestly confused as to why I should be branded a sock for making contributions as a concerned or affected person and why I should be held responsible for the actions of other people I do not know. The article was deleted on grounds of LLM issues not that all the sources are false or unverifiable.

While I understand that WP not Wikitionary, I might be wrong but I thought that’s for standalone articles? I have not attempted to create any new article on Ichafu so I fail to understand it's relationship to my concern. I am concerned about facts on Wikipedia articles. I also think that an attempt to add a relevant information with verifiable sources on a broader article is not a against wikipedia rules. I also do not think it goes against Wikipedia rules to mention Ichafu in a broader article with verifiable sources whether dictionary or not.  

Likewise, Ichafu or head cover is recorded across multiple sources albeit as Ịcafọ in dictionaries and head cover or headclothes, headties in ethnographic books. If Ichafu means headtie or headcover across all Igbo-English-French dictionaries, then I don’t think I broke any rule by adding sources where headties are recorded as part of Igbo women’s ensemble.

Again you should take note of the fact that it is an Ibo-English-French dictionary not just an English dictionary. The recorded word is Içafo. The ç represents ch in Igbo lexicon which is Ichafo/Ichafu. Does variations in spellings invalidate that? If it does you can let me know.

Please the concern here is not all the derailings pointing at closed AFDs and socks that aren’t me, the issue I raised is: there is no source backing up Sohyvan’s claims that: “Today Igbo women has adopted the use of Yoruba gele” if there’s no source to back that up, he should remove it because it’s not factual. If he acknowledge that there are historical records of headties, headcovers, headcloths being part of Igbo women’s traditional clothing ensemble, then why is he accusing them of borrowing headties or gele from the Yoruba without a valid source?

Please in order to avoid ambiguity, he can create separate ANIs if he wish to address other issues other than the concerns I raised. The whole deflection is not addressing the case at hand. I feel ignored and it is not fair. Deetailz (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither Gele, Yoruba culture, nor "my article" have any relevance to the fact that Ichafu does not exist in this English-Ibo-French dictionary you and others keep citing for it. The words for headdress in it are "Akwa-isi" and "asusu-isi" respectively. You can't be claiming you feel ignored while ignoring this point that has been repeated by everyone else.

The fact that you still keep insisting the book says Ichafu is a head tie when others are telling you it doesn't is not shocking to me, it's just part of the disruptive behaviour you and these other accounts have been displaying. Sohvyan (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I only made references to Içafo here because you raised the issue yourself pointing to closed AFDs etc. Içafo as clearly documented together with akwaisi as you rightly stated is headdress/kerchief(cloth worn as a covering for the head) where the ç in içafo is pronounced as "ch" in cherry. This example is directly pulled from this same dictionary, the very first page. Since there are concerns over semantics, I won’t dwell on that further to follow Wikipedia rules.

So could you address the claim in your article that states as follows: “Today Igbo women have adopted the Yoruba gele into their culture”. Since this claim is false, you should delete it because there are no sources backing that up. That’s the only concern I raised on your talkpage before you escalated the whole issue drawing in closed AFDs, blocked socks, ANI, etc.

Again, Sohvyan, instead of the back and forth straw grasping, can you explicitly address the issue at hand? I only brought it to your talkpage for resolution to avoid edits that could be perceived as disruptive contrary to your allegations. Deetailz (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There are no "concerns over semantics" here, this is about what is actually in the English-ibo-french dictionary you've repeatedly and erroneously cited. There is absolutely nothing in this English-ibo-french dictionary on the "Içafo" as a head piece, and the "Ichafu" doesn't exist in it either. Full stop. No amount of comparisons or side-stepping changes that hard fact.

Whether or not you agree with the most prestigious fashion authority in the world (Vogue) about the widespread adoption of the Gele is your own problem, you've already been warned severally against disruptive edits. Sohvyan (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sohvyan Unfortunately you're wasting your time, this person is not going to get the point. Needs a block from an admin and a CU. Not much else we can do here. Electricmemory (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have to start by stating what you wrote on both the gele article and your talk page verbatim:

On the gele article:  “Today, Igbo women in general have adopted the Gele, and they wear it by its original name”

You didn’t attach any citation to this claim on the main gele article.

You however added a citation in your talk page discussion to back up the statement. You wrote this verbatim: “Originally from the Yoruba tribe, it has now spread its charm throughout the continent. A proud symbol of femininity, the Gele is gracefully worn by women during festivities and joyous celebrations. Though the wearing of Gele is commonplace for women in the Nigerian culture, the two cultures that are especially noted for wearing the Gele in both its casual and sophisticated form are the Yoruba and Igbo cultures."

You added a citation source to this quote on your talk page: https://vogue.sg/olive-ankara-nigeria-gele/

I tried to verify this but on clicking the link it says error 404. I couldn’t find this information.

On the particular statement in your article where you wrote this:

“Today, Igbo women in general have adopted the Gele, and they wear it by its original name”

This assertion is false because it is not backed up by any ethnographic studies.

This is so because gele simply means head-tie or handkerchiefs, etc across all Yoruba-English dictionaries. It is a Yoruba word for headties, handkerchiefs, face towels, napkins etc in the records.

This doesn’t erase the existence of native words for headtie across all ethnicities in Africa.

According to page 145 of the 1904 English, Ibo and French Dictionary by the Holy Ghost Fathers:

“Kerchief; - Akwaisi, içiofo, içafo; - Couvre-chef.”

This entry records içafo (ç is pronunced as ch in Igbo lexicon) as a translation of “kerchief.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines kerchief as:

“A cloth worn as a covering for the head…”

and notes that the word derives partly from French forms such as cuerchief, corechief, and coverchief.

In the 1904 dictionary entry, Akwaisi and içafo are presented as equivalent translations for “kerchief.”

Furthermore, page 114 of the same dictionary translates “headdress” as Akwaisi. Since Akwaisi also appears alongside içafo under “kerchief” on page 145, this suggests that içafo/ichafu denote a head-covering or headdress.

Likewise, the 1913 Dictionary of the Yoruba Language published by the Church Missionary Society records:

“Handkerchief, n. aso inuju, gele.”

even though the dictionary also contains separate entries for “head-tie.”

In summary, the 1904 English, Ibo and French Dictionary records içafo as a translation of “kerchief,” a word defined as a cloth used as a head covering. The same entry equates içafo with Akwaisi, which elsewhere in the dictionary is translated as “headdress.” These entries show that içafo refer to a head covering or headdress.

Similarly, if Official English-Igbo dictionaries record the translation of Içafo as a headdress and kerchief(a cloth worn as a covering for the head…) it has rightly established that Içafo is a headdress in Igbo usage.

There are ethnographic records as early as 1947 stating that headclothes are a traditional Igbo women’s clothing ensemble much like many ethnicities in Africa. In the book titled “Ibo Village Affairs” by M.M Green, she states as follows: “…and above everything was the dressing up, In ordinary life the women wore a short cloth folded round the hips and a reaching to the knees and some wore a head cloth. But for a meeting, everyone would try to borrow, if she did not possess, some kind of a blouse or tunic, and all would wear a headcloth of some kind”

This among plethora of sources establishes that Igbo women wore headties/headcloths/headdresses as a traditional clothing ensemble with its native names as recorded in the dictionaries.

So if you refuse to edit a cultural article that ignores the cultural diversity in Africa or Nigeria at least, please do not frame texts in ways that appear to erase the culture of others. Stating that: “Today Igbo women in general have adopted the Gele, and they wear it by its original name” is a false framing that distorts the fact that Igbo women did not adopt gele(headties), and they wear headties by the original names native to them as Içafo, Akwaisi, etc. perhaps you need to add nuances to reflect that. This historical record cannot be overturned by a non-functioning Vogue post highlighting an individual opinion of a no established ethnographic or anthropological authority. Deetailz (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Deetailz Why do you continue to insist the Ichafu or Icafu are "clearly documented" when it's been established over and over again that that is verifiably false? This dictionary you continue to cite does not mention it, anywhere, not on the first page, or the 112th page, or anywhere else. Including the two AFD discussions, multiple dozens of people have pointed this out, and you still refuse to get the point. Electricmemory (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you read my responses, you would find out that I am not arguing that Ichafu is in the dictionary. I have been arguing here that Içafo NOT Ichafu is in the dictionary including the page nunbers I left and the ones you cited. And I do this because he is the one raising the issues not me.

I have pointed out that the concern I am raising is the information in the article on gele over and again. I’m not willing to engage on Içafo topic but he keeps bringing it up.

Please is it allowed on Wikipedia to add information not backed up by an acceptable or verifiable source? I have kept on saying that he claimed that: “Today Igbo women have generally adopted the Gele and wear it by its original name”. He didn’t add any source on the article to back up this disputed claim. Also he went ahead to add a source from Vogue that the link says error 404 when it is clicked.

Please what do you advise I do to address this issue. As an editor, If I go on editing it repeatedly, it may appear disruptive which is why I raised the issue here. Deetailz (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is about the Icafo/Ichafu issue, not the "gele" issue which is a content dispute and does not belong on this noticeboard. And you still are continuing to not get the point, which is that Içafo is not mentioned anywhere in that dictionary, which I just checked, again, for the third time, and other editors have repeatedly told you. None of the page numbers you left include it, nor does any other page beyond that. At this point this has become a WP:CIR issue as you are still refusing to understand this, and continuing to state it despite it having been proven false to you over and over again ad nauseam. Electricmemory (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please for what it is worth and the avoidance of doubt. Ịçafo is clearly mentioned in the English-Ibo-French dictionary.

A simple keyword search will clear this and align with the pages I mentioned earlier. This has been my usage of the term throughout this ANI. Please, check carefully.

My response here about Içafo from the beginning was that Sohvyan is grasping straws and none of the issue he raised directly aligns with my concerns nor addressed them. I also proceeded to confirm that head clothe headdress existed in the Igbo tradition over a century before Sohvyan's unfounded 2023's vogue publication.

I have sincerely fail to understand what I have not stated here. I also do not understand why you have consistently said I do not listen when in fact, I have provided more than enough evidence to back up my arguments and instead constantly being shut down. Deetailz (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For more clarity, please type kerchief, and headdress on the dictionary to see the igbo icafo or akwaisi meaning for this. Note that Kerchief is a cloth worn as a covering for head according to Oxford dictionary.

Thank you Deetailz (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

for the last time, Ịçafo is a HANDKERCHIEF ONLY, not any head piece in the english-ibo-french dictionary. I literally quote you in my first post showing that YOU said Ichafu is there as a head piece when IT IS NOT. Ịçafo is a handkerchief only, and Ichafu isn't in the dictionary at all. Sohvyan (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Içafo has AT LEAST TWO appearances in the English-Ibo-French dictionary and just like gele in Yoruba dictionary on page 86 meaning handkerchief, the first appearance of Içafo is in page 112, with the English word entry Handkerchief translated as Içafo.

The second is in page 145 with the English word entry Kerchief translated as Içafo with equivalents like Akwaisi.

In page 114, the English word entry Head dress is translated as Akwaisi.

For easier verification and clarity, search Kerchief and headdress on the dictionary to see the Igbo Içafo and Akwaisi equivalent or translations for that.

Note: Kerchief= a cloth worn as a covering for the head according to Oxford dictionary.

Also note: I have refrained from mentioning Ichafu ever since given semantics concerns as warned by the Admin, it is you who is now extending that debate. If you make an incorrect statement, I’d drop a valid source that straightens that. Deetailz (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about the Yoruba Gele, idk why you keep bringing that up.

As Electricmemory rightly stated here

"If you want to write about Icafo, Iciofo, or akwaisi, that's great, because those are mentioned and detailed in the sources you provide. "Ichafu" however is not mentioned, anywhere, which dozens of editors have pointed out by now." which is presicely what this ANI and the deleted article is about that you with several others had been insisting existed in this dictionary. Sohvyan (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

jj

Thank you, Sohvyan for making the purpose of this ANI clearer to me, about the claim stating that: “Ichafu does not exist anywhere”.

If that’s the case, then I assume I’m allowed to speak on that to address that statement. The distorted information in the Yoruba gele can be addressed separately later then as said by the Admin.

On the issue of “Ichafu does not exist anywhere” I’m disputing that claim as incorrect.

Firstly, Ichafu as a term has an entry in the “Dictionary of Ibo Language: English-Ibo” compiled in 1913 and published in 1923 by the CMS(church Missionary Society. page 72), It is recorded there as:

“Head-dress, n. …Ichafu - isi…, Akwa-isi”

The “Oxford IB Diploma Programme: Visual Arts Course Companion”, written by Jayson Paterson, Simon Poppy, and Andrew Vaughan and published by Oxford University Press, explicitly contains an entry for Ichafu, describing it as south-east Nigerian ceremonial headscarves. This academic textbook lists it as a distinct cultural sign alongside other globally recognized textile traditions like the Japanese kimono.

Ichafu is integrated into global pre-university education. It is explicitly included as an official subject of study under the “Textiles and cultural signs” syllabus guide in the Oxford IB Diploma Programme: Visual Arts Course Companion, published by Oxford University Press. (Section 3, pg 33).

In the book “Tomorrow I Become a Woman” (page 45, 52, 393) by Aiwanose Odafen, published by Scribner in London, the word Ichafu appears both in the glossary and within the story itself as part of an Igbo traditional wedding setting.

The glossary defines Ichafu simply as “Igbo for ‘head-tie.’” In the narrative, the term is also used to describe part of the bride’s ceremonial clothing, including “a matching orange ichafu that Mama had painstakingly tied for me,” worn with bright-orange Hollandis wrappers, a gold blouse, and large red coral beads.

In the novel "My Angel the Devil" (p.5)

The author directly defines it for readers by writing "Ichafu head-tie" before immediately using it as a standalone noun to describe how the garment physically fits.

The word Ichafu and its cultural significance has been noted even in Granta, one of the most respected literary magazines in the English speaking world:

“…church services were fashion shows – an endless, shameless carnival of women in colourful blouses blended with expensive ichafu which they tied in layers and pleats until the scarves were piled atop their heads like large plants, obstructing the view of everyone seated behind them…” https://granta.com/ogadinma/

Note: please this is not me persisting on dwelling on Ichafu issue but correcting a false statement made by Sohyvan in this ANI saying that: “Ichafu does not exist anywhere” since he says this ANI is about Ichafu.

Again, to clarify, I did not create a new independent article on Ichafu, which is quite different from mentioning Ichafu in broader articles with verifiable sources.

Since the Ibo-English-French dictionary source is being disputed for semantics, I have dropped it and cited other equally verifiable and acceptable sources above showing that Ichafu is not only relevant but a significant Igbo clothing ensemble which means Head-tie or Headdress in English.

Thank you. Deetailz (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I literally put this sentence at the end of my ANI submission. "Note, this is not about the validity of the topics involved, but the behaviour of the editors". The behaviour being that 3 editors listed above, including you, kept citing two specific sources for the Ichafu when the Ichafu was not in them. That pattern of behaviour clearly shows that the 3 of you never independently checked the sources while insisting on them.

No one has ever said the Ichafu doesn't exist at all, you just made that up, and this is part of the problem. In fact several people who supported the deletion of that page already pointed out that the Ichafu is a thing, they just don't exist in the "English-Ibo-French dictionary" from 1904 or the "Igbo villiage affairs" from 1947. That's a fact. Actual documentation of the Ichafu outside of that is completely irrelevant to the behaviour displayed in an attempt to pass off false sources. Sohvyan (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, both AFD discussions were full of vastly experienced editors who have been around for years. Electricmemory (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Even Sohvyan explicitly said the user who submitted the article on headdress is a new editor whose account was created on 21st of March, 2026, and around the same time the AfD came up. He also acknowledged my account was new when I participated in the AfD. This confirms my earlier assumptions that some of the editors were probably amateurs who made uninformed mistakes. And I feel like this entire situation is being used against me. It is highly unfair. Deetailz (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sohvyan see reply here for visual formatting concerns.

I DID NOT add any source at all to the article on Headties nor gele which is why you should refrain from lumping me together with people I don’t know to create a false sock impression, and by the way as @Electricmemory rightly said, this is a "public page meant for public discussion," therefore anyone can participate. As for the articles Editors making edits that improving existing contributions, or supporting comparable positions does not automatically amount to sockpuppetry. A review of many other articles on Wikipedia would similarly show multiple editors making edits that either supported or opposed earlier contributions. That is a normal part of editing and not evidence of sockpuppetry.

I only mentioned the contended citation in your talk page where I addressed the misinformation on the gele article where you asserted that: “Today Igbo women in general have adopted the gele and they wear it by its original name” with the aim of proving that Igbo women didn’t adopt the culture of using headties as you alleged. This UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM made by you was NEVER stated in the referenced article. The irony.

Please take note of the fact that a broader article on headties not a standalone article on Ichafu which nobody created is being discussed here. The source you are referrig to as grounds for sockpuppetry or the intentional use of false sources is a book titled “Ibo Village Affairs”obviously discusses the use of headcloths among Igbo women and have no relationship to the parallel you drew to Ichafu AfD. The article mentioned headcloth and I used it under a head tie talk page, NOT Ichafu. Now, even if such a source is cited on a Wikipedia article titled Headtie to highlight the traditional use of headties among Igbo women, just as is done for other African cultures, it is not a breach of Wikipedia policy nor evidence of sock behaviour. Instead, it contributes to reflecting cultural diversity because the article is NOT just about etymologies but culture.

This article on Wikipedia said:

"A head tie, also known as a headwrap, is a women's cloth head scarf that is commonly worn in many parts of West Africa and Southern Africa. The head tie is used as an ornamental head covering or fashion accessory, or for functionality in different settings. Its use or meaning can vary depending on the country and/or religion of those who wear it."

The Headtie article highlighted various indigenous names for headties across different cultures.

It says:

"There are varying traditional names for headties in different countries, which include: moussor (Senegal), gele(Nigeria), duku (Malawi, Ghana), dhuku (Zimbabwe), tukwi (Botswana), doek (South Africa, Namibia)[3] and tignon (United States)[4] Jewish women refer to their head ties as a tichel or mitpachat."

Having “Ichafu” added as an indigenous Igbo term for headties among Igbo women, supplements the discussion of traditional headtie usage, rather than an introduction of false information or false citations as you allege because of semantics and orthographic issues.

The 1904 dictionary citation containing the spelling “Içafo” rather than “Ichafu,” but has "akwaisi" in your claim was added to back up the details in the headtie talk page, and is fundamentally an orthographic and semantic issue rather than an attempt to force false information into the article, because I myself had relied on that in this discussion in good faith until it was made explicitly clear of the strict literally, lexical and graphemic issue in both words by @Electricmemory on this ANI page. Also, on that talk page, I explicitly used "OR Ichafu" which makes Ichafu not a primary reference but a back up.

Given my understanding during the course of this ANI discussion that Wikipedia requires exact wording without editorial inference, I have earlier withdrawn reliance on the 1904 Ibo-English-French Dictionary and instead provided more direct, verifiable, and reliable sources explicitly supporting the existence and usage of “Ichafu” as a traditional Igbo term for women’s headties.

Since these newer sources have now been provided, I believe the concerns regarding verifiability and sourcing have been adequately addressed. These sources establish that “Ichafu” is a recorded traditional term, so that its inclusion in broader articles, such as the article on headties, is justified where relevant especially where it doesn’t erase others but rather shows the rich cultural inclusivity.

I have moved away from the disputed dictionary citation and now rely only on sources that are clearer, verifiable, and compliant with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.

I hope this clarifies my position and helps resolve the dispute. Thank you. Deetailz (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This reads like you were veering very close to performing original research - conflating a dictionary entry on a handkerchief with the term for headdress, based on other sources and your own understanding.

The length of this discussion shows why that's generally a bad idea; Wikipedia is a repository of reliable sources, we don't perform any analysis of the sources ourselves.

"Orthographic and semantics" are very important in an encyclopedia, especially so when we're directly citing a dictionary entry. Blue-Sonnet 08:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

No. It was a term for Handkerchief, kerchief, and headdress which is appropriate under a head tie page. Deetailz (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Providing more details on this:

1. I DID NOT add any of the references being discussed here on the main article page on Wikipedia. I only mentioned them under Sohvyan's talk page.
2. Ịçafo had at least two entries in the said dictionary which had both kerchief and handkerchief. This was also same for gele. And gele made it to this head tie page. Why can't Ichafo?
3. What I meant by othorgraphic issue is that "Ịçafo", where the 'ç' is pronunced as 'ch' in cherry in the said dictionary. This is much an older writing compiled by a non-igbo speaking person. As of today, Igbo people DO NOT have 'ç' in their alphabet, but 'ch'. So I learned it here that this Içafo cannot be Ichafo. Which is surprising, as what we know today as "Igbo" has historically been spelt as "Ibo", or "Eboe" by non-natives, and Igbo has infact made it to Wikipedia. But we learn everyday.
4. There seem to be a confusion in conflating the article entry and the talk page mention. Again, I added ZERO (0) of the articles being discussed here any where on the head tie article.
5. There is also another conflation of an Ichafu AfD with this head tie page. The two are different. One of the articles mentioned in the talk page as false citation, was in fact, accurate and appropriate for entry, if I so wish to add it under the headtie page as it explicitly discusses headcloth among Igbo women.

Deetailz (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

6. I have also provided new sources that are accurate under this ANI to establish that Ichafụ-isi, Icafo, akwa-isi, nchafu-isi, aku-isi, ufu-isi, ejiji-isi, ekike-isi etc, or their English equivalents of kerchief, headtie, headdress or other forms of head covering was NOT new to Igbo women. So they CANNOT adopt their over-a-century-old culture in 2023. Deetailz (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... Anyone else care to take a crack at this? Electricmemory (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No thanks... David10244 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Words from other languages often don’t have a literal English translation.

‘An Ichafu’ is different from ‘a (traditional) headscarf’. The latter term doesn’t refer to the same thing. ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I should’ve read better. ~2026-29121-62 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Attempt by uninvolved non-admin to summarize and contextualize

(Non-administrator comment) As the section header says, uninvolved editor here attempting to summarize/contextualize the above for any lurking admin who might be put off by the prospect of spending the better part of an evening reading the above section.

Background context: see this pair of AFD discussions: (1 (procedural close) and 2 (closed as delete), a related ANI discussion, a related SPI (also consider its archive subpage) and a deleted draft.

Summary of context and current ANI complaint: Ichafu (the subject of dispute) had its article deleted on second AfD attempt for being AI slop with hallucinated/falsified references after the first AfD was procedurally closed due to significant disruption by various new and temp users making markedly similar arguments while frequently (ab)using LLMs in their comments and referring to sources that according to multiple long-term Wikipedians have been checked and found to not actually contain any such information. The same and similar claims certainly do appear to continue to be made by at least one of the users named at the start of this discussion, considering they take up a rather sizable chunk of this very discussion (alongside other attempts to fight out the content dispute here). AddWittyNameHere 04:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Deetailz (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

In response to the summary of the complaint, I want to make some things clear, because there seems to be a case of semantic or orthographic misinterpretation framed up by the complainant as intentional source fabrication.

This is also a case of repeatedly referencing a deleted article and closed AFDs which creates the impression of defending the article when I’m NOT doing that. The two cases are different.

There are two things to be seen here:

1. Only one source is disputed here, a source out of plethora of other sources that I have provided which coincidentally appears in a closed AFD that I’m not defending.

2. The issue is NOT that the ONE disputed source lacks an entry relating to “kerchief” (defined in the same line as a cloth worn over the head as a covering, also translated as couvre-chef / headdress in French) in the Ibo-English-French dictionary. Rather, the dispute concerns the spelling and interpretation of the term “Içafo” versus “Ichafu.”

My position was based on the understanding that “Içafo” could reasonably correspond phonetically or orthographically to “Ichafu,” given the pronunciation conventions associated with the character “ç” in the material.

3. The complainant states that I inserted this citation into articles, which I DID NOT do. That was a FALSE ACCUSATION. The citation was referenced only on a talk page and within the context of an ongoing discussion, not as article content presented as an established fact. NO NEW ARTICLE ON ICHAFU WAS CREATED.

Regardless, to address this dispute, I have constantly stated in this ANI that away from the disputed source, I have provided more reliable and verifiable sources explicitly containing the word Ichafu and its meanings. Deetailz (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I am adding also that the reason I provided newer references in this ANI was NOT relitigate or defend the previously closed AfD, which Sohvyan (the complainant) reopened, but to address his concerns about me mentioning "Ichafu" at all under his talk page while discussing false information he added on the head tie article page.

The references were provided to show I did not invent the term as it has been existing for over hundred years, NOT an attempt to circumvent the AfD outcome or reinsert disputed source into article space. Deetailz (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the appropriate background context:

SOHVYAN TALK PAGE Deetailz (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with Roger 8 Roger and Māori topics

Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am seeking a WP:TOPICBAN for Roger 8 Roger on articles related to Māori (the indigenous people and language of New Zealand), including New Zealand history and aspects of other articles (eg. places) that touch on Māori. For several years now, Roger 8 Roger has clashed with multiple editors on a range of topics often relating to how Māori is portrayed in articles. He has made significant rewrites to key articles, which have often promoted more sceptical and fringe viewpoints in relation to those topics, or otherwise just generally degraded the quality of the article. Some of this is difficult to see clearly due to other intermittent edits, the behaviour occurring over a long period of time, or relying on context such as his choice of certain sources, but some examples include:

• Edit warring and removing content about Māori's influence on New Zealand English, and pushing a fringe view that NZ English is not distinct
• Various edits to the History of New Zealand in which he changes Māori loanwords to English with edit summaries calling the original text "agenda based" or "promotional", or where he removes significant content about Māori history without explanation
• Significant edits to the Māori renaissance, South Island and Māori electorates pages in which a lot of content is removed related to Māori history (including outright stating that too much weight is given to it in the case of the South Island, and describing content on the Māori language as "unimportant clutter")
• A series of edits to the toponymy section of the Christchurch article which introduced NPOV issues, misspelt Māori words, and cast doubt on the Māori name (note: these were reverted by another user after universal opposition to them on the talk page)
• Removing content about historical actions against Māori schools with the edit summary in part I suggest ignoring if possible everything about this so-called school banning of maori we see in the media and just look at the facts in quality RSSs, which he then edit warred over when other editors disagreed with his removal

Roger often pushes his viewpoints staunchly on talk pages, which I admit I have bitten back at more than I probably should have over the years. He frequently accuses other editors of being part of a government-backed agenda to promote Māori, with examples including:

What we are therefore left with is the multitude of low grade sources that work to an agenda. That includes all govt based sources, yes all, including maps; it also includes comments from most people younger than 40 who have grown up hearing all this agenda based version of history Special:Diff/1354075898

What role then do macrons play? They are discretionary opinion based techniques used by, in this case, a council, to promote an agenda - its need in law to promote the Maori cause Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 25#Appeal to revert the revert that changed Paekākāriki back to Paekakariki, and/or to clarify rules around Māori place names

I expect we can now put to rest this utterly wasteful use of time taken up by certain editors keen to play their part in the politically, legally and artificially based promotion of Maori language and culture. Talk:New Zealand/Archive 8#Use commonly understood words

(in the context of supporting a page move away from a Māori name), The rest of us can at least take comfort in the knowledge that people in authority are finally waking up to the indoctrinating nonsense in New Zealand that has been going on for several years now and they are starting to reverse the damage that has been done before it goes any further. I see the correction of this article's name to use European instead of pakeha as just one small step in the repair process. Special:Diff/1192607443

He has also used an AI response to try and claim that the Māori name of a city is artificial and referenced a literal conspiracy theorist magazine to back up his claim of a government-backed agenda to promote the use of Māori. Further to this, despite the requests of several different editors over the years, Roger steadfastly refuses to use macrons (per WP:NZNC, consensus is to use macrons when the common spelling of the word in NZ uses them) and often misspells Māori words when editing. He has on occasion gone so far as to explicitly remove macrons from other editors' comments on talk pages, and often claims that Māori words with macrons are foreign and shouldn't be used (see here and the Illogicality section below it, or here). There are plenty of other instances of bizarre arguments in this space from Roger, such as suggesting that an article only use a few chosen historians as sources or ignoring sources in favour of his own horseshoe-theory based interpretation of what a Māori political party should be, using some interesting comparisons, but I think the current range of sources gives more than enough of a clear picture over the issue at hand.

At this point and despite the efforts of several editors to engage with him and address this behaviour, it's clear that things aren't going to change - one only needs to read through his user talk page or the archives of WikiProject:New Zealand to see that. The only solution in my view is a topic ban to prevent Roger from engaging on these topics going forward and allowing other editors to fix these articles. This is my first time at ANI, so apologies if I haven't done this correctly! Turnagra (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Just a few things to add:

• He has compared Māori electorates to the Apartheid by adding that article to the Apartheid's see also section, and also the Treaty of Waitangi

Choice of electorate based on ethnicity. And? You are assuming I meant one race is using the system to put down another race - synthesis? Other editors have made the comparison too.

• He has stated that he's pro-protecting the English language
• He is often rude and uses personal attacks. I cannot find any diffs for these but it's something that I've always remembered about him.

Panamitsu ✨ 00:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples? I don't use personal attacks. When I have done that, rarely, I always apologise. You are confusing a personal attack with a broad comment on an undefined group of people. If you associate with that group, and therefore feel personally attacked, I'm sorry, but that is down to you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Panamitsu, if you are looking for him being rude, using personal attacks, and—if I may add this—being outright offensive, then what is currently on Talk:Christchurch is a good example:

• It's pretty simple - people love adding words like 'major', heavy, huge etc to describe an event they feel close to - it makes them feel sort of important by pretending they are part of something unique.

What is rude about that?

• This is an encyclopedia that informs people of things they do not know, not what they have read in their short lives in newspapers.
• The mosques were less connected to chc and were a one/two off event that has had little lasting effect on the city, unlike the eartquakes. (note I added the wikilink to clarify what event he is referring to – I find this comment deeply offensive)

What is rude offensive or wrong about that?

• Some of you are simply not up to the job of editing this section beyond spellings and commas. I wish you would stick to that and stop interfering in a subject outside your comfort range.

Who is personally attacked? I said want countless other editors say and what some wp:essays say. It's also true, isn't it?

Schwede66 01:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

At least they didn't call them subhuman like another recent anti-Indigenous racist did. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yikes - Roger definitely hasn't done that, though in a recent discussion he did call Māori illiterate and implied they were uncivilised and savage. Turnagra (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

What is going on with the out-dents? Has someone inserted a bunch of unsigned text in the middle of Schwede’s comment? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the responses were by Roger 8 Roger. Panamitsu ✨ 11:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger: please see WP:INTERPOLATE, you have made it very difficult to follow this discussion. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Read my comments in full. I actually said we don't use those words now, but they were used 200 years. I think you know that Turnagra so you're being a bit naughty, trying to muck rake where no muck exists. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This from that diff is arguable immediately block worthy. Suggesting that this is a reasonable change "wholly oral" to "illiterate" which would reduce byte usage is clearly WP:DISRUPTIVE (it's exactly one byte shorter). It's only from two days ago so I think absent some sort of good explanation, a block is needed. Skynxnex (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

While I have my own concerns about other users in that discussion, (I don't think one source needs to be removed because of the opinions of one user without academic critiques backing their opinions up) Roger hasn't been doing himself any favours when he's exhibiting the same kind of behaviour. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Even ignoring which phrasing is better, pushing the more negative phrasing since it would reduce byte usage is, I would claim, incredibly disruptive. Skynxnex (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Reducing two words to one makes a sentence more compact and is often better for encyclopaedic writing. In this specific case I think 'wholly oral' is best because 'illiterate' can be construed as implying Maori could not read/write, which isn't correct. But I fail to see how that is a disruptive example. Roger is referring to 1840 Maori society, not modern Maori. And the context is this sentence: The two texts differ, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty, with Donald Francis McKenzie viewing its interpretation as the contrast between a literate culture and one that was wholly oral.

Reading and writing was only a recent development for Maori society and Maori, although many had learnt to read and write, still conducted agreements orally and would likely value an oral description of a written agreement more than the actual written agreement, which is the opposite of British culture where the written agreement would take precedence over an oral agreement. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I would just say advocating for changing a neutral sounding "wholly oral" to a negative sounding "illiterate" because it's one character shorter is fundamentally not here. Skynxnex (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

He didn't advocate for it, he said right after that 'but we have to stick to what the author actually wrote.'. Even if he did how is that 'not here', which implies he isn't interested in building an encyclopaedia, but his edit history clearly shows otherwise. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's late for me now so I'll reassess but I just find it fundamentally weird to ever talk about changing potentially sensitive prose like that by talking about the "byte usage". Skynxnex (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I do find it odd to refer specifically to byte usage instead of just saying 'less wordy' or something to that effect, because the actual amount of bytes isn't an issue with the amount of prose typically. But I don't see it as being a problematic comment, especially in contrast with the actually disruptive comments that go off-topic about non-article issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll add for now I maybe was a bit too quick to use such particularly negative terms here, but it feels very off to me. So I apologize for that and will reevaluate if this is still active when I can reassess. Skynxnex (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It's unfortunately not the first time Roger has chosen to use "illiterate" to describe early Māori (and subsequently been called out for doing so). nil ^nz 05:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Some other recent examples which come to mind are You sound like a year 9 student - are you? in a dispute about Māori schools (note: Year 9 is the first year of high school in NZ), or when he lashed out over an introduction to Auckland Museum's summer student editors. I didn't include the last example because it was unrelated to the topic at hand, but it certainly speaks to the manner in which Roger interacts with other editors. Turnagra (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There have been many cases where NZ school age editors have been encouraged to use wikipedia, one in particular springs to mind. That is commendable and to be encouraged. However, it should not be an excuse to stand by and watch while such an editor, through inexperience, hashes at an existing article, which is what many NZ editors were doing. Note, although not required, it is helpful to others if an editor indicates their age, no different from an editor making it known they are an topic expert.

The concern raised by Turnagra is that he disagrees with my opinions on certain issues - that is all, and that concern is shared by several other NZ editors. My language and edit tags might appear blunt at times, but that is part of wikipedia, is common with many editors, and inevitable on this platform. Most of these differences of opinion occur on talk pages where they belong and are a necessary and healthy part of creating a neutral and objective encyclopedia. If I change text on a main article, a reason is given, and I only put back a reversal if there is a clear error by the reversing editor - and give my reason. This is not edit warring. If I am shown to be wrong or there is clear consensus against my proposals I accept that and move on. I don't break the 3RR rule and I don't game the system by continually taking reversals to the limit and stopping. About the 'agenda', there is legislation in NZ to promote te reo Maori (as in many other countries with endangered minority languages) that must be followed by government crown entities and govt controlled bodies, such as mainstream TV, and the way that is done is usually at the discetion of individual ministries. (To show my concerns are not fringe, this discretion, resulting in over-promotion, is being restricted by the current govt). I therefore summarise all examples of that policy of promotion as following an agenda, which technically it is. This is often misunderstood and I am accused of alleging a conspiricy. Please look at the last link by Turnagra to the article talk page about what name to use for the 1835 Maori declaration of independence. Where is there anything unacceptable about my opinion there in opposing Turnagra's suggestion? Note there is a small majority agreeing with me. What possible reason has Turagra got in complaining except that he disagrees with me? The same situation exists in numerous other examples he has about my supposed misconduct - they are invariably groundless. He mentioned my work on the Maori renaissance many months ago. It was a considerable improvement to what was there before, with a source from an established subject expert, and was accepted by the wiki community: it is hard to see what Turnagra is complaining about. It is particularly disappointing to see that some NZ wiki editors assume that I am somehow anti-Maori, which is utter groudless nonsense. WP group work and country based collective wikipedia work is good but in my opinion there is a group of NZ editors who sometimes overstep the mark and believe they can decide what and how other editors act on NZ based articles, even if what they want is contrary to general wiki policy or guidelines. The notion that other editors must use a particular spelling, with a macron, of a standard English word such as 'Maori', is absurd - it is like threatening to block a user because they don't put an accent at the end of 'cafe'. Another example - I have said that NZ English is not a seperate language which Turnagra apparantly fails to understand. It's use, when an actual language name, not a variant, is required, is therefore inappropriate and should changed to just 'English'. What's the problem? I could go on. I regret that some editors are uncomfortable with my contributions on wikipedia, which range far beyond Maori articles, and I hope this application is dismissed as unwarranted and without substance. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

RE: Macrons, the cafe/café comparison falls apart when your refusal to use macrons for Māori words isn't like quickly using a word in a casual conversation online or through text messages, it's done because you're genuinely against the use of macrons entirely in Māori words. This shouldn't be controversial to say, because you've spoken against this practice multiple times. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• disagrees with my opinions on certain issues -- Wikipedia is not written using the opinions of editors. It is written using the opinions of reliable sources.
• if I am shown to be wrong or there is clear consensus against my proposals I accept that and move on. -- I have never seen you use a macron before. The consensus is to use macrons in New Zealand articles. You always omit macrons and someone else has to add them for you.
• My language and edit tags might appear blunt at times, but that is part of wikipedia -- No, rudeness and insults are not just a part of Wikipedia. They're around, yes, but most people are not rude. Unfortunately I'm often a bit rude myself but I have acknowledged it before and am working on being more polite. That is not something I've seen you do.
• The notion that other editors must use a particular spelling, with a macron, of a standard English word such as 'Maori', is absurd - it is like threatening to block a user because they don't put an accent at the end of 'cafe' -- This is an over-exaggeration. Macronless words are added to articles all the time and I personally have never seen any block threats relating to these spellings.

Panamitsu ✨ 03:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You keep repeating this idea that there is an "agenda", and if we are to speak bluntly, you are being entirely conspiratorial about it.
In one discussion here, you labelled Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand as a pseudo-expert blog, and your reason for doing so is because you believe that any source published by a library,[...] museums, govt depts, national associations etc are comparable to Communist Party China: The classic example is all the promotion of all things Maori which is often done because the law says it should be done - that means it isn't properly independent which in turn means what that source says could be unreliable - it does not reflect reality. An easy accusationn to make of the CPChina but less easy when directed at the NZ govt, despite the underlying problem being the same. nil ^nz 03:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger "often done because the law says it should be done". Isn't following the law a requirement in most places and circumstances? David10244 (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Roger, would you accept to refrain from voicing your opinion on such matters relating to the Maori language and government policy in this regards and to focus on article content itself? I find that whenever you do voice these opinions threads become derailed and very little is gained. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger pinging to ensure you see this. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"govt controlled bodies, such as mainstream TV" - The government is in fact prohibited from exercising any control over "mainstream TV" (if you are referring to TVNZ). So much so that not so long ago a politician was forced out of Cabinet for trying to interfere with TVNZ. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that when Roger goes off-topic it becomes unproductive and a waste of editor time, but I don't believe we need to go straight towards a topic ban. Rather a warning for Roger to focus on article content and not bring in real world controversies/arguments may hopefully be enough.

I find a lot of the diffs a lot more innocent than what is being stated is said to be edit-warring but Roger only reverted once from what I can see. Roger's view that New Zealand English is not a language is not fringe at all, we refer to New Zealand English as a variant of English in our own article and the example given is a loan word used in all variants of English, not just New Zealand. The rest of the edit removed unsourced text, which in my opinion veered into excessive detail.

is a good change, although the edit summary is needlessly inflammatory and wasn't reverted. Same for the following diff, although once again the edit summary is inappropriate.

or where he removes significant content about Māori history without explanation the edits linked here remove a duplicated reference, removed uncited text removed uncited text again and again and again, with this one being tagged for over 8 years! and this one which shortened a paragraph that had nothing to do with Maori All of these edits contain an appropriate edit summary and were not reverted despite being seen by other editors. I fail to see this being an example of disruptive editing, its constructive editing in fact.

Significant edits to the Māori renaissance, South Island and Māori electorates pages in which a lot of content is removed related to Māori history These don't contain direct diffs, which would be helpful. Presumably its this series of edits? which do remove a lot of content, but also add a lot of content. Most of the content removed was a list of people, which was criticised on the talk page by two other users Talk:Māori_renaissance#lists_of_people_question_&_in_general before being removed by Roger. at Maori electorates Roger again primarily removed unsourced text whilst adding sourced text

is the removal of unsourced content, which Roger did not edit war once he was challenged on it.

I agree that these edits were a change for the worse, and I was the one who reverted to the older version. But I don't see this as disruptive editing. After the reversion Roger did not restore his content nor edit war and respected that consensus against his changes.

Removing content about historical actions against Māori schools There is no content removal in the diff The source in question is the law itself, which isn't a good source and as a primary source only a simple description of it is allowed. The source states: No school shall receive any grant unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Colonial Secretary by the report of the inspector or otherwise as the Colonial Secretary shall think fit that the English language and the ordinary subjects of primary English education are taught by a competent teacher and that the instruction, is. carried on in the English language as far as practicable Provided always that it shall be lawful for the Colonial Secretary to contribute to the maintenance or salaries of such Native teachers as shall conduct Native Schools in remote districts when it may be found impossible to provide English teachers.' Ultimately after a talk page discussion Talk:Māori_language#Native_Schools_Act_1867 the text was removed as a contentious/contested claim cited to a primary source.

Further to this, despite the requests of several different editors over the years, Roger steadfastly refuses to use macrons (per WP:NZNC, consensus is to use macrons when the common spelling of the word in NZ uses them WP:NZNC is an article title guideline, it doesn't apply to article text itself. Regardless editors are not required to ensure their edit is in line with every single manual of style page, rather they are expected not to make edits that go against it and allow others to correct MOS issues in their edits.

on occasion gone so far as to explicitly remove macrons from other editors' comments on talk pages this seems like an accident rather than malice. The word in question still has a macron left in it after Roger's edits and he didn't edit the four other uses of the same word by BilledMammal, if this was an attempt to reduce the amount of macrons used on Wikipedia it was an incredibly ineffective one. It seems more likely that Roger, when editing the page, clicked onto BilledMammal's comment and accidentally backspaced over the word 'Pakeha', and he when he went to manually write it back he didn't include the macron.

Roger doesn't have to agree with consensus, but he does have to respect it, which he seems to largely do by not edit-warring and not trying to overrule consensus. I do strongly suggest Roger to focus on article content and not bring these real world arguments into Wikipedia as it is unproductive and not helpful to constructing an encyclopaedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have some thoughts in response that will take some time to collate, but in the interim is there any chance that you could convert your quotes to Template:tq so that your reply is a bit easier to read? Turnagra (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Onto the topic at hand, I think the issue for me is the pattern of behaviour. This has been going on for years, and has persisted despite multiple attempts by multiple users to engage and address it in good faith with Roger. Rather than jumping straight to a topic ban as you suggest, I see this as a last resort after years of trying to engage with Roger. I do think his heart is in the right place (as in, I'm not accusing him of being WP:NOTHERE), but the manner in which this takes place on articles relating to NZ and Māori topics is fundamentally antithetical to how editors should operate.

I also agree that the political accusations are a key issue, but given the track record I don't see how that could be separated from edits he's making in this space. For example, if he's editing the Treaty of Waitangi article, I don't think he (or other editors) would be able to separate the staunch views he has expressed from his edits, and so even with such a promise I think there will continue to be issues for as long as Roger continues to edit such pages. Given this, and the lack of any acknowledgement of an issue or attempts to do better - even as we've seen in their replies to this discussion - I don't see any choice other than a topic ban to address this. I'm sure if Roger's editing etiquette improves on other articles going forward and he learns from this experience then it could be revisited, but in the interim something needs to happen. Turnagra (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see what Roger says with regard to my proposal to agree not to comment on such issues in the future and focus on article content only, but I do think a topic ban from Maori would essentially prohibit most editing on New Zealand history which is a lot more broad than the issue at hand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I lost respect for Roger 8 Roger when they deliberately misspelled Pākehā as 'Pakiha' several times at Talk:European settlers in New Zealand/Archive 2#Requested move 30 December 2023. They explained it as "Should I have used pakeha rather than the misspelt pakiha? For such a commonly used word I cannot understand how I could have made such a spelling mistake?" I don't have a problem with someone not using macrons, especially on a talk page, but changing the spelling is disruptive. Roger is more disruptive than productive on issues relating to Māori, and I support a topic ban.-Gadfium (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Roger is more disruptive than productive on issues relating to Māori, and I support a topic ban. That sums up perfectly where I sit, too. Schwede66 05:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It is in part sort of offensive and is not well reasoned. What is it about my quoted statement that is in any way wrong? It's actually meant as a apology. The sound between k and h can easily be any sound between e and i when spoken (or are you telling me I should say Maori loanwords in a particular way?) When typing simple spelling mistakes often happen. Are you similarly offended with others make spelling mistakes. The sound 'Pakee..." is easier to say for many English speakers than Park-e.-. which probably explains how it happened. However, I'm wondering why I should justify myself to someone who draws such false conclusions from assuming a simple sentence doesn't actually mean what it says, but really means something else. What happened to assume good faith?. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you intentionally misspell it, or was it an accident? Your comment 'Should I have used pakeha rather than the misspelt pakiha? For such a commonly used word I cannot understand how I could have made such a spelling mistake?' does seem to imply that you did so intentionally. If you did not misspell it intentionally it would be good to clarify that now. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at every diff here, but first I want to say that the civility issue is genuine, and disappointing. Some of the quotes presented are just blunt discussion of content, and acceptable, but others such as You sound like a year 9 student - are you? and Some of you are simply not up to the job of editing this section beyond spellings and commas. I wish you would stick to that and stop interfering in a subject outside your comfort range. are personal attacks directed at specific editors and thus unacceptable. However, none of them are sufficiently egregious to justify immediately escalating to ANI, and I don't see discussion of such issues on Rogers talk page. If Roger didn't improve after such a discussion - or if they don't improve now that they've been alerted of the issue - then ANI and sanction for incivility would be appropriate.

Second, I see that one of the claims of disruption is by removing a macron from a talk page comment I made. My comment involved six macrons, and Roger only removed one; the claim that they did so deliberately is hard to believe, and I suspect that it was instead an accident. I think that accusation should be struck as requiring WP:ABF to see as disruption. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I support a topic ban for New Zealand. Their recent edits to Christchurch#Toponymy were clearly politically motivated and so poorly executed they resulted in a full revert. The poor quality edits in mainspace are less of an issue, though, compared with the incoherent rambling arguments on talk pages, and total refusal to accept criticism, no matter how constructively it is provided. It’s quite common for this user to make a 100 byte edit to an article that turns into tens of thousands of bytes of arguing in the talk pages. Attempting to wade into a good-faith argument with this user is like talking to a brick wall, except the wall also has dementia. The net effect on the wiki is to discourage involvement in New Zealand topics, particularly for our under-represented indigenous culture. Their obstructive edits pretty much completely killed a collaborative community effort to get the Christchurch article to GA a few years ago. It’s exhausting, and I know of two new editors who abandoned the platform completely after encountering this editor in heated discussions around Māori subjects. Their comments are frequently cited by new editors as a reason that they feel unwelcome in the NZ wiki community. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm more than happy to support a topic ban on New Zealand cultural, historical, and political topics, broadly construed. The behaviour in question here involves a cluster of disputes that I haven't previously seen reported, but the evidence provided above is more than sufficient to demonstrate an approach to editing on the Maori (and on contemporary and historical social topics relating to New Zealand generally) that is deeply WP:POVPUSH-oriented and which betrays a fundamental confusion about how to apply basic policy considerations on neutrality, weight, and verification of content. Bluntly, I think there's a pretty solid WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE arguments to be made here for whether this editor is equipped to contribute productively in any area, but certainly at a minimum they need to be separated from their bugbear in respect to New Zealand culture and governance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If any topic ban is needed (and there would be significant emphasis on the 'if') a topic ban on Māori topics would be a good start - either that or a restriction on reinserting material that has been reverted. However his editing is particularly troublesome on Māori topics. In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Waitangi&diff=prev&oldid=1354075898 he mentions an "agenda" six times but when queried as to what this "agenda" may be, can only find a video from a low-quality source (a web site currently best known for its owner throwing a public tantrum about a suggestion that they should be held to the same standards as reputable broadcasters). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Waitangi&diff=prev&oldid=1354098848 Daveosaurus (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I see no problem with adding a provision to make clear that the Maori are expressly included in the topic ban, but based upon the extensive POV soapboxing and railing against the woke multicultural agenda suppressing the WP:TRUTH of the "real" historical record for New Zealand, I for one do not feel comfortable letting them anywhere near that area as whole, consider their obvious potent drive to "correct" the record and their very tenuous grasp of this project's most basic editing principles.

When a user is making arguments that all government sources are 'low quality' merely because they relate perspectives that the user doesn't believe (and thinks are part of a politically correct mind virus that must be opposed at very turn before we can no longer speak the plain truth), or when they suggest that we should be dismissing the perspectives of those contributing to the discussion (on or off project) who are under the age of 40, because obviously these misguided sub-quadragenarians have already had their brains hi-jacked by the progressive propaganda of the new world order... Well, at that point it's pretty clear the user does not understand what factors define a WP:reliable source and WP:verification for the purposes of this project, what WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT demand of us in separating our personal views from our cultivation of content, and why we do not permit WP:original research.

And, again, this particular user is so far behind the ball on these concepts, despite having been here on and off for close to 12 years, that I have serious questions about their capacity to contribute non-disruptively on any topic that might potentially intersect with their political and ideological beliefs, and I have to wonder if a WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR block is inevitable. But certainly, based on their current POV- and OR-based approach to New Zealand, I do not think they should be permitted access to related articles and discussions: with their current non-understanding of policy and drive to push back against the menace of modern cultural sensitivity, I can only see them being obstructionist and disruptive of actual source/weight-based editing in those areas. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a wider topic ban for Roger for New Zealand, but the recent disruption at Christchurch was connected to its Māori name, so would be covered by a topic ban relating to Māori.-Gadfium (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I have interacted with Roger 8 Roger only briefly but those interactions left me with the impression of someone with an extremely rigid POV and an inability to recognize that their POV is not the POV (to paraphrase a vote in a recent arbitration case that involved some overlapping behavioral tendencies). Consider for example this 2019 discussion in which R8R put forward the idea that WP:10YT meant that we could only use sources that were at least 10 years old when judging whether or not to include macrons. This argument has always struck me as a level of tendentiousness rarely seen among editors in good standing. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The dismissive attitude towards criticism shown in this thread is also pretty remarkable. I don't have enough specific dealings in the topic-area to know if a topic-ban is the correct solution, but it's obvious there's a serious problem with this editor's behavior towards others. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Support tban on topics related to Māori. Even though I may disagree with him on a number of matters, I think that Roger does make many valuable contributions to wikipedia as a whole, including many NZ topics generally, so am supportive of a narrower tban for this reason. That said, I agree with other editors that when it comes to areas that overlap with Māori language, culture, or history, Roger tends to end up being more disruptive than collegial, and he exhibits (for lack of a better word) an anti-Māori bias (or, better worded, a bias against any source he perceives to be "promoting Māori").
He has pushed a fringe POV that there is a pro-Māori "agenda" in New Zealand that is not to be trusted, and back in 2022 he shared an article from a literal conspiracy theorist magazine as evidence of this so called "agenda". This "agenda" affects his interpretation of NPOV, when it comes to Māori:

• He derides the multitude of low grade sources that work to an agenda. That includes all govt based sources, yes all, including maps; it also includes comments from most people younger than 40 who have grown up hearing all this agenda based version of history.
• He prioritises an older source as useful because he predates much of the agenda based detail that was about to be rammed into NZ society. His work is not supposedly out of date because it has been superceded by later proper historical interpretations of what happen, but rather because he is not affected by the current agenda. In the same way, contemporary overseas sources are useful because they are on the whole not affected by the agenda based thinking within New Zealand society.
• He labels publications by historians and academics on Government run websites, including Library and Museum websites and Te Ara as pseudo-expert blogs that give a misleading impression of reality, and that such sources are not independent due to their promotion of all things Maori which is often done because the law says it should be done - that means it isn't properly independent which in turn means what that source says could be unreliable - it does not reflect reality.
• He straight up argues falsehoods, such as 'Tino rangatiratanga' does not mean absolute sovereignty. Maori had no concept of sovereignty in 1840 which created a major problem for the British at the time. This is counter to academic consensus and our own article on tino rangatiratanga.
• When it comes to using the correct spelling of Māori loan words, he states My issue with macrons isn't with macrons themselves, it is with the arificial abuse of English for a purpose, which is the promotion of Maori culture.

Roger should also be reminded in the strongest possible terms that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Many of his comments, relating especially to the age of contributors, are unnecessary and unwelcoming. Along with his comments highlighted above about people younger than 40 who have grown up hearing all this agenda based version of history, he has;

• commented on a post, meant to welcome a group of university students taking part in a GLAM-run internship, with All I see is young newbies, some still in school uniform, being thrown into the lions' den of wikipedia editing[...]
• asked, as a personal attack, You sound like a year 9 student - are you?
• and even in this very ANI thread he states it is helpful to others if an editor indicates their age.

Age is not an indicator of experience on Wikipedia, and all new editors arrive to Wikipedia equally inexperienced, whether they be teenagers, university students, or 40+ year olds. nil ^nz 01:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing

When opening this discussion, Turnagra sent three notification; to Schwede66, to Gadfium, and to WikiProject NZ.

The decision to notify the WikiProject is questionable, as the community has generally found they should not be notified on conduct disputes, but the bigger issue is the editors notified, a violation of WP:CANVASS' requirement that audiences be non-partisan.

The partisan nature of this notification is particularly obvious because despite making an allegation that part of the disruption Roger has engaged in is editing a talk page post I made, they didn't notify me. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to be fully clear on the notifications I sent, I also sent a fourth to Roger himself. As for Gadfium and Schwede66, I notified those two as the only two active New Zealand-based administrators that I'm aware of - it was nothing to do with their potential views on the topic. Similarly, the wikiproject was because of the wide-ranging nature of the discussions over the years, and was a deliberate attempt to not canvas as if I had notified specific users I'm sure I would have inadvertently missed someone and risked canvassing by mistake. I didn't individually notify any of the other number of editors involved in the discussions for that reason, which is why I didn't notify you. Like I said, this is my first time actively being involved in an ANI discussion, and so apologies if I had missed a previous consensus that wikiprojects or relevant admins shouldn't be notified of ANI discussions. But it was absolutely not an attempt to WP:CANVASS, and I'd thank you not to cast such aspersions. Turnagra (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're required to notify Roger, I didn't think it was necessary to mention that you complied with that requirement.

I cannot read minds, so I cannot say what your intentions were. However, your actions violated WP:CANVASS. BilledMammal (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of a third NZ-based administrator reasonably active in NZ history and geography topics but I'd rather not out them and drag them into this mess. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh interesting, I didn't realise there were more. The only other admin I could think of was someone who sadly isn't around anymore (User:Moriori). Turnagra (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:APPNOTE states that notifications may be sent to The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. That's the noticeboard. It also states that they may be sent to users who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). Both admins work on NZ content and as far as I know there are only about 3 admins involved in NZ topics. I don't know about Gadfium, but Schwede66 has described Roger 8 Roger's editing as disruptive before. Panamitsu ✨ 04:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the past, the community has generally found that WikiProjects do not have an interest in conduct dispute discussions, and that notifying them can sometimes serve to WP:VOTESTACK, if that community disagrees with certain behavior that is not actually disruptive. For example, if that community disagrees with the deletion of articles on athletes, or if that community disagrees with the removal of Maori words on the grounds of WP:COMMONALITY.

Schwede66 has described Roger 8 Roger's editing as disruptive before. That's part of the issue.

Opening an ANI thread and only notifying a few editors who also consider that editors conduct disruptive is canvassing and is likely to bias the result of the ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with notifying the NZ Wikiproject since this is explictly about behaviour the predominantly by far affects articles of interest to the Wikiproject. But I'm unconvinced of notifying the two admins. 04:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it is ok or not to notify a Wikiproject about ANI discussions. But I shall state that both Gadfium and I keep a close eye on WPNZ, and if a notification there is justifiable, we would have both seen it there. Schwede66 05:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Did either of you take (non-WP:INVOLVED) administrative action against Roger (down to and including any informal warnings)? Because, if so, I think the notices are completely justifiable; we always will want perspectives from admins who were acting in their official capacity on behavioural issues that become the basis for an ANI report. If, on the other hand, you were involved purely as editors contributing to content disputes in the discussions in question, had concerns with roger's behaviour in that context, and you were then pinged in a non-neutral fashion, then that would be less defensible. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your query, Snow Rise. New Zealand has a small editing community; the active editors all know of one another. And when you encounter one another frequently, including during talk page discussions, you are arguably involved. Hence, taking administrative action against active NZ editors is practically not possible.

It's already been linked to above, but I did warn this user about their behaviour last October. That's as far as I can go. Schwede66 10:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Return from "Canvassing" subthread

I think enough ungrounded accusations, or even just made up accusations, have been shown above. Other comments above confirm my view that this complaint is about not agreeing with my opinion, and that's it. WP is not about convincing others to agree with you, it's about practical cooperation. Yes, I don't agree with what some of you believe about certain issues, and I probably never will, but the same can be said of you. That's good isn't it - as long as WP rules are complied with - healthy debates and all that?

However, I agree that I sometimes talk too much, or am unduly curt, which has negative effects. These following two comments by Traumnovelle are far, far closer to reality than most of the accusations thrown at me above. So, if my style frustrates you, annoys you, or you think it unacceptable, say so, properly, but don't accuse me of more serious misdeeds instead. 1:"I agree that when Roger goes off-topic it becomes unproductive and a waste of editor time, but I don't believe we need to go straight towards a topic ban. Rather a warning for Roger to focus on article content and not bring in real world controversies/arguments may hopefully be enough." 2:"Roger doesn't have to agree with consensus, but he does have to respect it, which he seems to largely do by not edit-warring and not trying to overrule consensus. I do strongly suggest Roger to focus on article content and not bring these real world arguments into Wikipedia as it is unproductive and not helpful to constructing an encyclopaedia."

Therefore, I suggest I take this onboard as a warning and agree to tone down my comments, shorten them, and stick to the subject in hand without diverting off course. This claim is then removed and we try to return to improving Wikipedia. There is no need for a topic ban - my style is the same everywhere at many other non-NZ topics so the warning will apply everywhere. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Turnagra, both Schwede66 and Gadfium have disqualified themselves as administartors by commenting on me as they have. Partisanship is obvious. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not helpful. This is a discussion of your conduct, so naturally, administrators and editors are going to comment about your conduct. There's no expectation that administrators not have a strong opinion of an editor's conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I have always taken Shwede66 and Gadfium on NZ articles as being normal editors, certainly regarding me. They never 'throw their weight around' as admins.It was actually several years after joining that I realised Gadfium was an admin - he was, and still is, just one of the editor team. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

There are several problems with this request to block me for disruption, and it should be dismissed: it amounts to some editors just not liking my editing style.

1/ The examples given above are shown, by others, as misleading or factually wrong. It is hard to see this as anything other than a clumsy attempt to slur my name by fabricating evidence.

2/ All my contributions are factually correct or are based on sources, next to the edit or later in an article or that are easily available: I don’t intentionally give personal opinion, and I reflect those sources as objectively and neutrally as possibly. I also stick to areas I am reasonably familiar with, such as history, unlike some other editors who use source snippets out of context.

3/ This request is made by Turnagra, who has had many clashes with me since he joined, which could explain why the claim is so general and non-specific, with the specific examples given being clearly false. The poor construction of the claim and failure to reach a wider audience has been mentioned above too.

4/ Most comments are from a group of NZ editors who know each other and regularly meet in person or online, who, in my opinion, view themselves as having authority over all NZ related articles, independent of the wider WP community. The partisan nature of this request is clear and worrying. NZ articles form only part of my regular contribution to WP, with no serious, if any, official reprimand since joining twelve years ago.

5/ Comments by some other non-NZ editors above appear to be based solely on the comments made by the local NZers, and not by looking at the evidence, as they have admitted when challenged. One contributor based their comment solely on an encounter with me seven years ago!?

6/ Concerning are remarks made by two administrators, part of the local NZ cluster, who hover between editor and admin roles. Whether allowed or not, they should step aside, at least as admins, just as any senior authority would in a dispute, but they have not done so. A concerning example is that a simple sentence by me, given above by Schwede66 as an example of my so-called rudeness. It is hard to fathom what is rude about it: it is so palpably wrong and unjustified, notwithstanding that English isn’t his first language.

7/ Most of the complaints about my edits are from comments made in talk page discussions, not in an article. What’s wrong with that?

The only substance to Turnagra’s claim is that I sometimes use blunt comments in my edit summaries, and that, at times, I give unnecessarily long or repetitive commentaries on talk pages that puts people off engaging in discussions. That is not a blocking offence! I have accepted the reasonable comment about this made by another editor above, will take it as a wake-up call, and endeavour to improve. That is where I hope this complaint will end, with the block application being dismissed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t intentionally give personal opinion, and I reflect those sources as objectively and neutrally as possibly.

But are you reflecting sources objectively and neutrally, when you openly deride all govt based sources, yes all, including maps and comments from most people younger than 40 who have grown up hearing all this agenda based version of history?!

Also how on earth do you think a comment like notwithstanding that English isn’t his first language is an appropriate comment to make?? nil ^nz 22:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely wasn't approprate. I'm a native speaker and he has a far better grasp of the English language than me. Panamitsu ✨ 23:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Concerning are remarks made by two administrators, part of the local NZ cluster, who hover between editor and admin roles. Whether allowed or not, they should step aside, at least as admins I'm not sure what this is all about. I even commented above that since I'm involved, I cannot and will not action in an admin capacity. Hence, what does "should step aside, at least as admins" mean? Schwede66 02:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, Roger, the fact that you continue to deny there is any issue after multiple editors have expressed concerns with your behaviour is itself concerning. It's true that we've had no shortage of clashes over the years, but our differences of opinion have nothing to do with why I've launched this. I've disagreed with a number of editors before and have never taken anyone to ANI before. Nothing here is fabricated - you have repeatedly claimed that there is an agenda to promote the use of Māori, and this opinion has informed the sources you promote using, the way you have edited articles, and specific changes you have made.

That your response to this discussion isn't self reflection, but rather throwing accusations at me and other editors of making stuff up, trying to intentionally mislead people, or being a bit naughty (what?) is demonstrating the exact sort of combative and disruptive behaviour which makes this sort of thing worse, and has led to other editors disengaging from wikipedia. Comments like your fourth and sixth points are egregious and seem to reflect the way you engage with the community as a whole.

As for your point about how NZ articles form only part of [your] regular contribution to WP, I'm aware of this, and that's why I'm only seeking a topic ban from Māori issues. I have only seen how disruptive you have been in this space, and I can only hope that you're better elsewhere. Turnagra (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Roger is an intelligent and knowledgeable person who makes some good edits. In some debates over language (some time in the past) he made correct points against other editors with whom I might have broadly agreed, but who were making some incorrect statements, and for that I admired Roger. He is a rigorous thinker when he sets his mind to it (although this is betrayed by his loosely written and overly verbose contributions to discussions sometimes).

Some of what he does is not good though. In the discussion about renaming Pākehā settlersPākehā settlers to European settlers in New Zealand, Roger said: The title of this article is a quite appalling abuse of the privileges we all enjoy as WP editors. No less concerning is that most editors are genuinely acting in good faith and really do believe use of pakeha is correct. The rest of us can at least take comfort in the knowledge that people in authority are finally waking up to the indoctrinating nonsense in New Zealand that has been going on for several years now and they are starting to reverse the damage that has been done before it goes any further. I see the correction of this article's name to use European instead of pakeha as just one small step in the repair process.

It is one thing to think the title should be changed – I supported the change myself – but to call the existing title an "appalling abuse of [editor] privileges" is an extreme and bizarre criticism of (unnamed) editors. Oddly, but thankfully, he immediately contradicted himself by saying "most editors are genuinely acting in good faith". As to the "indoctrinating nonsense" etc, he appeared to be talking about something like recent promotion of the use of words of Maori origin (such as 'pakeha') in English, even though such use has been happening for about 200 years. I found his comments disturbing and, given that I was on the same side of the debate as him, I gave serious thought to making a personal statement disassociating myself from them. I didn't do that only because I hoped for the debate to stay on point.

Roger made large deletions (over 6,600 bytes) from History of New Zealand in Oct 2025. I disagreed with much of the deletions and politely took it up with Roger on his Talk page. Roger responded in kind. He acknowledged that he had wondered whether he was deleting material (from that and other articles) too aggressively, but had preceded anyway. He gave me carte blanche to revert him on that article, for which I thank him. (By the way, that article still has five "citation needed" tags, so if anyone want would like to add citations or otherwise improve an article that is Top importance for WPNZ, go to it.) So, all ended well in that case, but it did leave me with the thought that all Roger's edits should be followed and checked. That's a burden I do not intend to take up. And I find it problematic that I should think it needed.

Others have raised the "Pakiha" matter above, so I will touch on it. After he had spelt it that way four times, it seemed to be more than just a typo. I found it perplexing, as Roger knows the correct spelling perfectly well, having used it without error (disregarding capitals and macrons) consistently, 14 times, earlier in that discussion. So I asked him for an explanation. He replied, Should I have used pakeha rather than the misspelt pakiha? He knew full well the answer, so this question was rhetorical. Why did he ask it, I wonder. Then, For such a commonly used word I cannot understand how I could have made such a spelling mistake? I didn't pursue the matter, implicitly giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I wondered whether he was being disingenuous. Roger has now explained how he might have made such a mistake, but it stands at odds with him consistently spelling it correctly earlier.

Roger is a good faith editor who is here to build the encyclopedia, and I don't accept the idea that he is not here for that (ie, NOTHERE). However, he brings a point of view to NZ topics that in my estimation is strongly on the conservative flank of the central consensus among thinking NZers (of which he is one). To be fair, a point of view somewhat toward the progressive flank of the central consensus is also represented in this discussion. (In my vanity, I consider myself somewhere in the centre.) I assume Roger considers himself committed to neutrality, and believes that his POV does not run contrary to that. In my opinion, his POV does colour his activity here. And I think he has deleted content from articles too aggressively, and needs to be watched for that.

I always find it difficult as to how we should handle the kind of editor who does a mix of good work and the problematic. I probably err on the side of tolerance. Roger's response to Traumnovelle's comments is positive, so I am inclined to not actively support a ban. However, my impression is that problematic editors often do not succeed in changing their behaviour sufficiently, and such second chances often end with the community eventually imposing some type of ban anyway.

I fear I have been too long-winded. If so, sorry. Nurg (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

No apologies needed, Nurg. That's a very reasonable reflection. Thank you for sharing your views and insight. Schwede66 08:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I also appreciate your insight Nurg, but I still think a topic ban for Roger 8 Roger on Māori topics is appropriate.-Gadfium (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, a good post by Nurg - closer to reality. By addressing a couple of points raised I hope to clarify what has happened. When I say there is an 'agenda', I refer to the politicians who drafted the law that obliges govt entities to promote Maori issues. They had a purpose in doing that, which is an agenda. Current govt bodies, crown entities and their administrators have to follow the law, hence all Maori related govt sources are subject to an agenda. The writers of later govt publications do not have an agenda, neither do WP editors who use those govt based sources. You are assuming I accuse you all of working to an agenda in a conspiritorial way, which is wrong. I know my posts are technically correct but I accept that using the word 'agenda' is likely to be confusing and lead to false assumptions, and that at times I choose not to use less ambiguous language even though I know 'agenda' will cause confusion. (Most) WP editors do not have an agenda by using govt sources. My objection has always been that the govt sources used are tainted because they were created due to the intention/agenda of the writer of the law.

Similarly, some of my language is unnecessarily verbose and inflamatory. Rather than "appalling abuse of [editor] privileges" or "indochrinating nonense" I could have said "we should consider what we write is used by countless readers so we should be careful to be as precise and neutral as possible", and "the source used has to comply with certain laws in the way it writes about (painting in a positive light) Maori issues, resulting in certain statement not being quite accurate or misleading." I know what I mean, and I know my wording might cause false assumtions, but I use it anyway because it's quicker and shorter to use. Please note, this is only done on a talk page or edit tag - in an article I am careful not to use that type of language. So, what error has occured to justify a block, or even a warning? At best my off-article writing warrants a heads up on my talk page, and I have agreed to take this lengthy heavy-handed ANI discussion as that 'heads up' notice.

I agree with Nurg's observation, that when challenged on certain edits I made, I do clarify what I mean. However, I regard such clarification as just that, rather than a change of opinion. Wiping 3,000 plus bytes from the history of nz article was justified because none of it was referenced and some of it clearly opinion based. But, some of it probably was correct and references could be found if we looked, hence my hesitation at the time. I did not have time to sort through it all and add references so I left it for someone else to do. I do not see anything at all negative in what I did. The negativity was in the mind of certain editors who assumed I was being 'anti-Maori'. I have done the same broad removal of uncited text in other articles over time, which I think we should all occassionally do.

Pakiha vs Pakeha - Nurg has over-thought this. It is a simple spelling error when writing at speed or when tired. I often do the same with other words that sound the same with different vowels, such as mixing up seperate and separate. There is no intention to misspell. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Without getting into the actual issues, I think that it's probably best to avoid the word "agenda" on Wikipedia as that is a highly politicised word that seems to me to be primarily used by the right-wing press. I think the same idea can be communicated in better ways, for example with the word "bias" which is the word Wikipedia itself uses: WP:BIASED. Stockhausenfan (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Māori topics as a minimum sanction that still allows them to work on New Zealand generally. I appreciate the thoughtful response above, however this apparently quite entrenched behaviour so an enforced break from the worst trigger points may be beneficial here. Blue-Sonnet 07:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like this discussion is running in all directions and would benefit from a dedicated section with a formal TBAN proposal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've been considering posting one for a few days; I've gone ahead and done so. I've also proposed a warning for Turnagra for canvassing violations. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

See subsection below - I appreciate BilledMammal's objectiveness here but that does not make their approach completely correct. A warning to Turnagra, for example, is unnecessary and overkill. Once again, my wrong doing on Maori issues - where is the evidence? There is most certainly a failure to assume good faith which BM confirms by having to assume bad faith. The reason you have to assume bad faith - and go against the wp policy of assuming good faith - is simply because there is no evidence of wrong doing! You fail to see that my edits on some Maori issues are an opposition to what can be broadly described as political correctness, resulting in an attempt by me to write what quality RSSs say, that is, to follow wp policy, something I think is not being done. Remember, group consensus does not override wp policy or, in most cases wp guidelines. The debate to have should be about that, following the PC line instead of RSSs, not about Maori, who just happen to be the subject of this political correctness. I suggest the reason there is no evidence is because whenever an actual example is give, it does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Using my responses here as evidence of my 'not accepting fault' is silly - it amounts to assuming guilt. What else am I supposed to do when faced with such groundless accusations? The only merit in Turnagra's request is that I sometimes, and only sometimes, write to excess on talk pages and can sometimes be curt (like countless other editors). Where is the wp breach of anything in that except frustrating some editors? Finally, if Turnagra's claim is so flawed it requires a warning, why is it that the flawed claim is still being considered? It should dismissed, and re-submitted properly, or just let be. Although WP is not a court, I cannot help but imagine the response if this claim were brought before even the lowest level tribunal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposals

Roger 8 Roger topic banned

• A: Roger 8 Roger is topic banned from Maori topics, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in six months.
• B: Roger 8 Roger is topic banned from New Zealand topics, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in six months.
• C: Roger 8 Roger is warned to be mindful of their behavior in the Maori topic area, and that future misbehavior may lead to sanctions.
• D: Roger 8 Roger is topic banned from Māori language and Māori history. This sanction may be appealed in six months. (Added 03:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC) per Nil NZ)

03:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support A. While some of the diffs provided require WP:ABF to see wrongdoing, that is not the case for all of them. Further, I am concerned by some of Roger's replies here, as they don't appear to recognize the issues with their editing; I feel like a break from this topic area is appropriate. Oppose B, as too broad; there has been no evidence of disruption in New Zealand topics unrelated to the Maori. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Support D, per Nil NZ. Support A as second preference. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban Roger lacks tact but he has admitted 'Similarly, some of my language is unnecessarily verbose and inflamatory' and has agreed to improve his conduct. I'd like to see him have a chance before going to a topic ban given a lack of previous ANI threads/sanctions/formal warnings. I think we can all agree that if a 2nd ANI thread is required to be opened following this then a topic ban would be an inevitably. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support A as first choice per my previous comments. Support D as second choice.-Gadfium (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gadfium (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• (edit conflict) I'd like to propose (and support) a narrower version of A; D: Topic banned from Māori language and Māori history, as this is specifically the two areas causing the most issues. The proposed Maori topics, broadly construed is too broad and would exclude Roger from participating in a huge portion of the NZ topic space. For the same reason, I Oppose B. Support A as a second preference. nil ^nz 03:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you give an example of somewhere that would be covered by A that isn't covered by D? I'm struggling to conceptualise the difference in the scheme of things. Turnagra (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Temuera Morrison could be seen as covered by A but not by D. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Politics wouldn't be covered, although politics are probably the place where Roger most often goes off-topic. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment since this is my first time at ANI, can someone please confirm whether non-admins actually have any say in decisions here, or is it just giving input so that admins can make the call? Turnagra (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's consensus among all editors, with the opinions of admins having no more weight than non-admins. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Although I do believe this is a case where the discussion should be closed by an admin. And if memory serves, ERs are usually logged by admins as well? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I do not believe an admin can impose a topic ban without community consensus unless it is a contentious topic. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support D I'm wary about the 6-months limit, though, due to the lack of insight by Roger 8 Roger. Then again, I suppose they will have to demonstrate during their appeal what they want to do differently. There's no need to post a canvassing note against my name as I would have seen the ANI notice on the WPNZ noticeboard anyway. Schwede66 08:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support All. I'm deeply concerned that the way this proposal has been formatted and presented is going to lead to a splintering the !vote and confusing closure, despite the broad support for some sort of topic ban established in the forgoing discussion. Personally, I feel that--based on the breadth and nature of the disruption to date (and the animating sentiment behind it), compounded by the heavily WP:IDHT messaging of their responses here--that the ban ought to cover New Zealand culture, history, and politics, broadly. So, in that sense, first choice: support B. And I really don't think that narrowing the scope to just some aspects of Maori culture is going to be very pragmatic; it's only going to create nightmares for enforcement and invite testing at the edges. So, in that sense, second choice: support A and third choice: support D. And, under all circumstances, I believe that Roger should consider themselves formally warned by the community at this point, so support C whatever the disposition of the choice of topic ban scope. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I can appreciate the reservation around the vote splitting, but I think from how it's shaping up there's a clear consensus for a topic ban of some sort and it'd just be a case of working out how extensive that is, so hopefully there's less risk of vote splitting in that regard? Though it does complicate the close a bit for sure. Turnagra (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support B because the remarks regarding the Christcburch massacre were also alarming. D is my second choice. Simonm223 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support A as first choice, B second, as I'm starting to share others' concerns about Christchurch. Third choice is D considering minimal editing that would fall outside D but not A - I don't feel strongly enough about that to oppose it, however, and it's a suitable alternative. I don't think C is enough, but it's better than nothing. Blue-Sonnet 15:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support B or D or really any of them as a second choice. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support A or B, likely in that order but it's close. Obviously as nominator I've been of the view that a topic ban is necessary due to the ongoing conduct and the persistent refusal to recognise a wider issue as seen in this discussion, with the rationale widely covered in this discussion already. I'm concerned that Option D could get confusing and lead to wikilawyering (the example of Māori politics per Traumnovelle is particularly of concern, as I think a lot of that is related to the issues we've discussed (and to Māori history more generally) so the line would be pretty blurry. I also think that C is insufficient - while I appreciate that this is the first formal ANI discussion, it's far from the first discussion with Roger about his behaviour and nothing has changed from previous ones, so an enforced break from the area will be useful. Turnagra (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Turnagra warned

Turnagra is warned to be mindful of our canvassing policies, and that future violations of them may lead to sanctions.

03:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support I was not impressed by their canvassing of Schwede66 or Gadfium to this discussion, nor by their general failure to acknowledge it was problematic, but I think a warning is sufficient remedy at this time - if they violate WP:CANVASS in the future than sanctions can be considered. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't believe a formal warning is necessary here. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Not needed.-Gadfium (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Gadfium (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Oppose – all that's needed here is a trout. nil ^nz 03:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with Nil. Schwede66 06:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm not convinced there was an effort to skirt WP:CANVAS here. To the extent that we want Turnagra to be mindful of WP:CANVAS, I'm not sure that a formal warning (implying that there was definitely some violation, or at least playing fast and loose with the guidelines, at play) is the way to go. On the flip side, if Turnagra does questionably butt up against WP:CANVAS again, I doubt anyone will be shy about pointing back to this discussion, regardless of whether there was a warning, formal or otherwise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:59, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support it looks like this warning has already been heard by Turnagra, and was genuinely an oversight on their part. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Popward - constant low quality additions, and ignoring concerns by other editors

• Note:This was archived, I'm unarchiving because the issue(s) brought up have not yet been resolved. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Over the last three years, Popward123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has amassed a talk page full of warnings, and they were previously blocked briefly for a lack of communication. While some edits they perform have been constructive, over the last few months their edits have been growing more and more disruptive. All of their edits have been minuscule but disruptive nonetheless, such as adding periods at the end of captions, or repeated cosmetic edits. Despite being warned numerous times on their talk page, they haven’t responded there since February and have continued to make the same edits that edits have raised concerns about.

I’m beginning to feel that this user may well be a net negative to the project, taking up more volunteer time than they’re making useful contributions, and attempts to resolve this amicably via talk page discussions have failed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To add some weight to this you will see that multiple editors have taken issue with Popward123's editing, so it's very a much a community thing. See, for example, this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#Popward123. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that I'm familiar with the issues and benefits of having editors on the autism spectrum (WP:AUTISTIC), and that transport-related topics can be more of a honeypot than Wikipedia as a whole, but equally I think there comes a point where the behaviour of editors on the spectrum becomes an issue, as it is here. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A quick search of the editor's contribution history shows less than 100 edits in total to talk pages of any kind on site. It does seem to suggest that the editor has trouble communicating on talk pages, or perhaps doesn't like communicating on talk pages. Perhaps a block from the article space would be a good idea to see if that helps get the channels of communication open a little wider than they currently are? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I’d normally agree, but it’s worth pointing out they have already been blocked for communication issues Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that they edit articles on other subjects, and I only see the tranport-related edits, so if there are no problems elsewhere then perhaps a topic ban on London and/or UK transport articles? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We could consider a topic ban, however i'm unsure how much that might help, particularly with people who disorders of the mind as they tend to act like offshore drilling rigs and park over one specific area. Being told to shove off and do something else may result in more drilling else where or the use of the platform in an attempt to chase off the boats saying scram. A long term block from the article space could work - in theory - but that may end up pushing the problems with editing onto the talk pages via spam use of the edit help request system. A middle ground here could be mentorship, but I am uncertain if that would help in this case either. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. An interesting thing is to look at interactions after their April 2025 block for not using edit summaries. This complaint was about editing on rail articles, so afterwards the edit summaries were huge - way disproportionate to the size of the edit itself and would have taken longer. But they did produce edit summaries (mostly) on rail articles thereafter. However, since the block they have given no edit summaries on non-rail articles - presumably because they were only sanctioned for edit summaries on rail articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we could look at logged editing restriction(s) then? If we got a reply the first time around we may get some beneficial behavior out this round too. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

particularly with people who disorders of the mind as they tend to act like offshore drilling rigs and park over one specific area

With all due respect, what in the actual fuck? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"...disorders of the mind" - yep, that's a well very known symptom of Alzheimer's. Parkinson's, too, now I think about it. Depression, anxiety, the list goes on...

BTW are you trying to create a simile for hyperfixation, except you're applying it to waaaay too many people in a not-very-sensitive-and-should-probably-be-reconsidered way? Blue-Sonnet 17:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I agree some action is needed and dialogue has failed. Their last edit to Kilburn tube station, after being asked specifically not to edit transport pages any more without first discussion, suggests WP:NOTHERE. They are frustrating the article writing process and have been doing this for some time. MRSC (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I just checked their edit history for the tag "reverted" and there were over 700 items (10%). Not too bad, until I realised that just over 200 of those are from the past four months. Blue-Sonnet 14:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Some time ago I promised myself I would not revert their edits unless they were on featured content, otherwise that's all I would be doing here. MRSC (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There's not too much point if they're not overtly disruptive & too numerous, so that means the true rate (of edits that qualify for reversion) is probably much higher.

No-one should ever have to clean up after any other editor & it's always sad when it gets to the stage where you start asking whether you should. Blue-Sonnet 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't come across them lately, but this sounds similar to when I was issuing warnings, and a block, to them back in 2024. A lot of poor decisions and failing to follow through on the basics. Disappointing to see it apparently hasn't gotten much better. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I would heartily agree with some action being taken. The most recent thing made made me facepalm was this - saying "I will stop" and then immediately breaking that promise.

OK, MRSC. I won't edit any transport-related articles. If I see something that I think needs to be changed, I'll write about it on the talk page. Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And yet following that you went ahead and edited two more transport articles. <snip> 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Turini2 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a block is deserved for breaking a voluntary restriction, especially as they undid a previous edit of theirs. I am also less than convinced by the quality of some of the advice/replies they have been given, e.g. changing the caption on Russell Square tube station from 'Station entrance' to 'Russell Square station' is so obviously wrong it should not need explanation (link) or That makes literally no sense (link). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

TBH the whole point of engaging them was to give them a chance instead of taking them straight to ANI. The pattern just repeats and repeats and the frustration of others grows, e.g. User_talk:Popward123#Piped_links? which was discussed and agreed in November, discussed again a few days later, then back again just a week ago. To give some context to the example you give of the caption, they had gone through multiple station articles (typically) changing the "Station entrance building" to "XXXX tube station", which was less than helpful. They had already been told through revert summaries not to do it, I had commented in the immediately previous section on the talk page, and yet still it carried on. So many editors have had to clean up after this one individual. We shouldn't all have to do that. We are here to improve content not be janitors. If frustration comes out in a talk page discussion then to me it's understandable sometimes. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Popward123 Saw you made an edit - do you have any comments on the above? Turini2 (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@TomStar81 so Popward123 was invited to comment here two days ago, has ignored that invitation and has in fact carried on editing the very same articles they promised to stay away from (diff). What next? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

They've used their own Talk page less than a month ago so they know it exists. I sent a third prompt to them earlier in case more urgent phrasing might help, but it's strange that they've ignored two notices already for a relatively experienced user (nearly 8k edits). Blue-Sonnet 19:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Keeping this open as they appear to have developed ANI flu Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I see Popward123 is back editing today, but still ignoring this ANI. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• @10mmsocket, Danners430, Blue-Sonnet, and Turini2: Since we've seen two separate editing spurts but no replies here I've gone ahead and permablocked from the article space pending some participation in this ANI. Make it clear this is not a punitive move, its me firing a shot across the bow in hopes of getting their attention. If we make progress here we can lift this block. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! I've got their Talk page watchlisted, I'm hopeful we can finally get this resolved. Blue-Sonnet 13:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Popward123 please can you join the discussion here instead of your Talk page?

  Whenever someone raises concerns or asks you to do something, you essentially "parrot" their concerns back at them but don't actually change the way you edit.

  I'm worried that you're not actually understanding what you're being asked to do, since you've been warned about the same issues for two years but you don't change the way you edit.

  Let's look at the most recent examples (I've ignored the responses that were simply "Ok"):

  • 26 April 2025:

  OP: will you engage on this talk page when other editors raise concerns and try to discuss issues with you?

  You: I’ll engage on this page when other editors raise their concerns and try to discuss issues with me.

  • 30 June 2025:

  OP: it’s your job after being reverted the first time to discuss your changes on the article talk page.

  You: OK, I will discuss the changes the first time after being reverted.

  • 17 November 2025:

  OP: Why are you still doing this, and indeed reverting 10MMS's edits?

  You: OK, Danners430. I won't revert other users' edits again. Thanks for your message.

  • 4 January 2026:

  OP: The purpose of edit summaries is not to say what you did (since that is usually obvious) but rather why you did it.

  You: Yes, it makes sense. I'll use edit summaries to describe what changes I've made and why I made them. Thanks.

  • 13 January 2026:

  OP: Edit summaries are not intended to describe what you did (that should be clear from the diff), they are supposed to provide a brief explanation of why you did it.

  You: OK. Edit summaries are there to explain why I made these edits. Thanks.

  On a lot of these discussions, you've gone back to doing the same thing in a matter of days, despite agreeing not to - in some cases it verged on edit warring.

  Your latest post promising to do better reads exactly the same as all of the above discussions. What's different now, how can we be sure that you'll change your behaviour when you've said exactly the same things before?

  This is a genuine question - how can we know that you truly understand the problems you've been causing and how to avoid them in future? You've been brought to ANI before , you've been blocked before, you've promised to stop being disruptive before.

  What's changed since the last time you made these same promises?

  Blue-Sonnet 13:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Blue Sonnet.

  My name is Vasan (account user: Popward123). I started using Wikipedia three years ago. When I make an edit in an article and then my edit gets reverted, I have to always engage on the talk page first. I mustn't add new information without resources. I should always use edit summaries (brief explanations of why I did it and not what I did) and not revert an edit by a different user more than 3 times in a 24-hour period (known as three-revert rule).

  In January this year, I saw my edit reverted by a different user for an article, "Golders Green tube station". I then engaged on the talk page to discuss the edit.

  I'll actually change the way I edit and not just say it.

  Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I hate to say this Popward, but once again - you're literally parroting back the five concerns that Blue Sonnet raised above. What we really need from you is the following:

  1. Demonstrate that you understand the issues that are being raised - what are the problems, why are they problems, and how do they relate to your editing?
  2. What are you going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again - not just "I'm going to do this", but rather what meaningful steps are you going to take to change your ways?

  The reason I'm being so detailed here is because of the above examples, and the previous ANI - you've made promises to stop behaviour, then within days or weeks you've gone back on those promises. So we now really need more than simple promises. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Here are my answers to the questions.

  1) I do understand the issues that are being raised. I know what the problems are and how they relate to the changes I make in Wikipedia.

  2) When I see something that I think needs to be changed or correct, I'll engage on the talk page first like how I engaged on the talk page about my edit on the article, "Golders Green tube station". Popward123 (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Popward123 your answer to #1 isn't enough, I'm afraid - we're talking about two years and well over a dozen issues and warnings. A simple "I understand and won't do it again" is exactly what we keep getting from you over and over again, yet nothing ever changes.

  Looking through the links & quotes we've provided above, all the warnings on your Talk page, all the times you've assured us that you understood the problems and wouldn't repeat them, what is different now?

  Why should we trust that you've finally understood the problems you've been causing for two years and also know what you should have done instead? I desperately want you to be able to do this, which is why I'm trying so hard to get you to understand just how much of a problem this is. You need to do more than just repeat our own words back at us. Blue-Sonnet 02:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  OK, Blue Sonnet. I'll do more than just say it. Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  But you are literally just saying that. What are you actually going to do different? What will stop multiple editors having to repeatedly clean up after you? Can you explain your behaviour and understand the disruption that you have caused, and why that has brought you here? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. I won't argue with you. I understand the disruption that I have caused. If I see something that I think needs to be changed or correct, I'll engage on the talk place. Popward123 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry. I spelt 'page' wrong. Popward123 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm so sorry for my unacceptable behaviour, 10mmsocket. I will PROVE to other editors that I'll change the way I edit. Popward123 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  We are asking you to prove it here and now. Not just a statement that you will do so. If you don't know how to do this, then say so. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's the problem, you've had two years to prove that you understood the warnings you assured us that you did, just as you're assuring us now.

  Can you take three of your edits that you've received warnings for, explain why your edit was problematic and what you would change about that specific edit now? You need to do this in your own words, with a link (diff) so we can see which one you've picked out.

  Don't choose any that are missing edit summaries & try to make sure each one addresses a different problem.

  Try to write something like "In this edit I did W, that was a problem because guideline X says Y, next time I will do Z instead". Blue-Sonnet 11:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  How do I take an edit which I've received a warning for? Popward123 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Look at the warnings you have received. Look at your actual edit that prompted the warning (look at the "Contributions" link on the top right of you page assuming you're editing from a desktop browser) and work out from that contribution was was wrong. Then come back here as prompted by @Blue-Sonnet above. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  On 12 April 2026, in the article, "Chancery Lane tube station", I created a "Services" section and I wrote in this section that Chancery Lane station is on the Central line in fare zone 1 of London. I also wrote that the station is between Holborn to the west and St Paul's to the east. My edit was wrong as the warning stated that I shoudn't change or add content to an article without citing a reliable source. So Danners430 reverted it back to the original by removing the "Services" section. From now on, I won't change or add information to any article without a suitable reference.

  On 14 February 2026, in the article, Elephant & Castle tube station, I put full stops at the end of captions in the 'statue', 'Northern line southbound platform', and 'Baker Street & Waterloo Railway' images. My edit was wrong as the warning stated that MOS:CAPTION said, 'Most captions are not complete sentences but merely sentence fragments which should not end with a period'. So Bazza7 reverted it back to the original by removing all full stops. From now on, I won't add a period (like a full stop) at the end of a caption which is not a sentence.

  On 26 April 2026, in the article, "Piccadilly Circus tube station", I've written the caption of the title image as, 'Underground station entrance'. My edit was wrong as the warning stated that I should avoid stating the obvious and only describe the content of this image. So 10mmsocket reverted it back to the original as 'Station subway entrance in Piccadilly Circus'. From now on, if there is a title image in an article, I'll only describe its content. Popward123 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  You have not demonstrated an understanding of why you were wrong. As other editors have brought up, you are just repeating what they have said already. Competence is required. GarethBaloney (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've written the edits I made, what was wrong with each edit, and how I can improve that edit. I only need to know WHY each edit was wrong which I don't know. Popward123 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  and in his defense nobody is doing a very good job of explaining this Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I only need to know WHY each edit was wrong which I don't know. What does this mean? ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  It means that I know WHAT went wrong with each edit but I don't know WHY. Popward123 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Why what? (Please use a short paragraph to explain what the thing is that you don't understand; a single sentence doesn't seem sufficient, at least for me.) ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  They are asking why the edits are such a big deal. I don't know what is so unclear about that. And quite frankly, with a lot of these edits, I am also wondering why they are such a big deal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Gnomingstuff What it boils down to is editors having to check their work. Because the edits they make are tiny, sure - but they add up to a net negative to the project.

  • going against the manual of style, such as adding full stops to captions or italics where they shouldn't be
  • rewriting captions making them more verbose and wordy
  • cutting sentences or paragraphs in half unnecessarily
  • lots of tiny tiny cosmetic edits over and over that don't help or are actually unhelpful
  • generally unresponsive to concerns or "parroting" them back at people (above and below)

  This isn't helpful Wikipedia:GNOMING, it's disruptive. @Bazza 7 explicitly suggested minor/small "things you can constructively do" to them, to no avail. Turini2 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  My edit on 12 April 2026 was wrong because if I add new information to an article without a source or reference, it will be treated as unreliable. Readers will see this information as incorrect/false. My edit on 14 February 2026 was wrong because captions which are merely sentence fragments look more like labels, titles or caption tags, than complete sentences. Fragments are seen as short descriptions. If I add periods (like full stops) at the end of them, they will look messy/untidy. My edit on 26 April 2026 was wrong because I stated the obvious in which readers will see it as less useful or unnecessary. Captions do more than repeat what readers can already view. They tell readers things they can't truly get just by looking. If they only state the obvious, they will add little value. Popward123 (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering - could you please try and locate a reliable source for your 12 April edit, then let us know what source you have chosen and why you selected that one in particular?

  A direct link to the website or book page will be needed, so we can check your understanding of reliable sources and see if there anything else we need to address.

  Please also include a diff for your original edit, since you made several on 12 April. I think I know the one you mean, but a diff is always important when discussing edits to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Blue-Sonnet 17:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  TBH I think we have moved past that point now, so I suspect it would be a wasted effort. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I live in hope and thought I'd give it a shot considering they pinged me below. This is such a prolonged discussion that it's getting rather confusing!

  If they were somehow able to find a reliable source, learn how to add diffs and perhaps even inline citations then that would be wonderful, but it would be pretty unlikely.

  I still wanted to give them a chance, regardless of how small they chance was. It might also give us an idea of whether the proposed indef below is reasonable or not, because I'm not sure how they'll be able to make proper edit requests if they don't know how to find reliable sources.

  That said, this thread is starting to die off so it's probably best to let them make edit requests and see how that goes for a while. Blue-Sonnet 01:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  For my edit on 12 April 2026, I have chosen the official Tfl tube map as my source:

  https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/tube

  I selected this source because it is published by Transport for London, the organisation responsible for operating the London Underground, so it is an authoritative and reliable source for station and line information.

  The map directly shows that Chancery Lane station is situated in fare zone 1 between Holborn (west) and St Paul's (east) on the Central line, which verifies the information I added in my edit.

  I now understand that even information which appears obvious or widely known should still be supported with a reliable source when adding new content in an article.

  The diff for my original edit is:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chancery_Lane_tube_station&diff=prev&oldid=1348389638 Popward123 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Popward123: Just to double-check, are you writing this out manually or are you using some sort of software (even translation) to assist you? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Manually. Popward123 (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding this. In general, we definitely need more onboarding for newer editors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:11, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  User talk:Popward123#Piped links? - need I continue?

  We have been desperately trying in good faith to explain the problems with their edits for months now - and we’ve got nowhere. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

@Danners430, 10mmsocket, Chaotic Enby, Blue-Sonnet, MRSC, Sergecross73, Turini2, and Popward123: Having read through this whole thing I'm getting the sense that this is less disruptive editing and more in line with WP:CIR-related editing. To that end I'd propose one two solutions:

• 1) An indef block on CIR grounds, since its seems that there is an absence of competency here and it is required for Wikipedia contributions, or
• 2) Mandatory mentorship for a period of time to be determined on this board, after which period Popward123 may petition for release from mentorship provided they can demonstrate that grasp what issues have been brought up here and how to act on this issues moving forward.

Anyone have any thoughts on which of the two options they prefer? Personally, I'm leaning towards 1, but I am willing to listen to feedback from all parties. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

(As an aside, I will be offline more or less for the next 5 days, I'll keep tabs on this but be patient with me while I get through my work week, otherwise feel free to ping another admin if consensus for action emerges between now and then. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC))

I'm inclined towards 2 since I feel they should spend time learning about the issues though this mentorship rather than giving them a block straight away. It's also possible they may be an inexperienced editor hence they are unaware of these problems. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Not happy with the outcome, but the indef is probably better than mentorship at this point. Their whole talk page and even this discussion is people acting as de facto mentors, and given what I've seen, I think this will just end with an indef anyway, with a mentor having pulled out all their own hair. Let Popward make example good edits on their talk page while being INDEFed and then lift it to a partial block from articlespace, with a small number of daily edit requests being allowed (something like three). I just think that we've reached the limit of discussion with Popward. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Let Popward make example good edits on their talk page while being INDEFed and then lift it to a partial block from articlespace, with a small number of daily edit requests being allowed (something like three).
I get why this was proposed, but is there a reason we can't start from a pblock from articlespace (and other affected namespaces), then bring it up to sitewide if the disruption persists? This would allow the user to continue making edit requests, and it can also be implemented in conjunction with item (2) proposed by TomStar81. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessarily a barrier. Admins allow blocked editors to do test edits on their talk page all the time, and there's even a standard set of directions in a template for it. It's all for the purposes of a possible unblock, after all, and if it's a consensus, it shouldn't be hard to implement. I'm just trying to think of ways that this editor can show improvement without a huge burden on a mentor or on the community to handle edit requests. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your thinking. However, I was thinking something along the lines of letting the user make edit requests directly while restricting mainspace (and other non-talkspace) edits. If a full indef is enacted, it should be as a last resort after other, less drastic methods of stopping the disruption have failed, at which point we should really be telling them to take the WP:OFFER. That's just my two cents, anyway. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think a mainspace block would be a good next step - either they make multiple good-quality edit requests and appeal successfully in a few months, or it becomes clear they're unable to edit constructively and an indef is considered. Blue-Sonnet 05:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Blue Sonnet. I've answered your question about my three edits above. I've also written why my edits are wrong. Can you please check? Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Any mentor will need to feel their time's well spent - that the encyclopedia's being improved enough to make the mentoring worth their while. But Popward123 tends to make rather small changes that don't improve the encyclopedia much when they're correct and are often wrong. They also tend to make the same changes, good or bad, to many articles at once - which of course brings them to the attention of multiple editors. They then return to the same articles to make different small changes - requiring multiple editors to consider whether any are worth keeping. I fear mentoring will only work if Popward's banned from the topic of transport and commits to making only substantive changes on single articles. I don't know if that's within their competence. NebY (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right. I only want to edit an article if I see something in it that needs to be changed or correct. Popward123 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that slightly; I suggest mentoring will only work if Popward's banned from the topic of transport and commits to making only substantial changes on single articles. Do you understand that you need to stop making small changes that don't improve the encyclopedia much and need to stop making multiple changes? NebY (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I DO understand. Popward123 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 to NebY.

This entire discussion does not demonstrate to me that Popward123 realises what hole they're in right now, and that parroting "I will improve" and "I DO understand" is ... not helping their case.

I am leaning towards option 1 here. Turini2 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That's my concern with #2 - there's a huge reliance on other editors to notice and fix future disruptive edits, as well as presuming that they will listen to and understand feedback from their mentor - something that hasn't happened once over the past two years. This is a lot of work for others to assume.

A compromise might be a mainspace block, where Popward123 has to submit edit requests for other editors to assess - too many failed requests and further sanctions may be considered. Blue-Sonnet 21:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If that is the compromise position then should there be a third option here to retain the existing block as it is and allow for the account to appeal after six months, since this option isn’t included in the above? ~2026-28911-97 (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I missed a word out, apologies! I meant to say "keeping the mainspace block". Those can be appealed at any time, but it's rarely a good idea unless someone has built up enough edit requests for a proper review to take place. Blue-Sonnet 14:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Blue Sonnet. I've replied to your request about my 12 April edit above. Can you please check? Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Since administrators are the only people who can lift blocks, it's probably best if they review your response - I wanted to help guide you in showing an understanding of what happened and why, so that everyone could make a fair assessment of your case.

There's a possibility that this might have taken a bit too long & this thread could be closed without further action, in which case your best path forwards would be to submit edit requests for more experienced editors to review and make on your behalf.

Once you've got a good, long history of accepted requests, you could look to make a formal block appeal in the future. It looks like you've got the hang of finding sources and adding links, so that will really help you to make successful edit requests going forwards. Blue-Sonnet 18:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks Blue Sonnet. I'll try and make good edit requests for experienced editors to review and make on my behalf. Popward123 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Don Gavi dos Reis II—COI and battleground mentality

• Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• History of the Jews in Barbados (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has made significant, substantial edits to the linked article and has also declared themselves to be a member of the subject group, per these user page diffs. The text of this page as well as their interactions with other editors shows an unwillingness or inability to understand key WP policies, including WP:COI, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA. For example:

• This blatant accusation of racial bias against another user
• This claim of ownership over the article
• This talk page comment, which could be read as an indirect accusation of racial bias against me
• Another claim toward ownership of the article

At the least, this user needs some mentorship and guidance—if they are willing to listen.

Since I have been attacked, I am pulling back from the user and article: I am involved in the dispute and do not feel comfortable taking further administrative action, and I've already said I would not substantively edit the article due to acting as an admin related to it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just writing up an ANI post about this editor. I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia and are only here to right great wrongs, writing If you are not a Dutch Sephardic Jew who meets the criteria established by Kasa Baruch, do not write anything on behalf of our people without permission and that wikipedia admins do not care about ethics on their userpage (permalink). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ugggh, as Cdjp1 has noted, this is an absolute mess now, and I tip my cap at their efforts to try to clean this up. The editor in question seems to be throwing in references under the consistent approach of...whatever. I'm not sure it's not just preferable to just restore the March 11th edit, before all this started. Even without Don Gavi's rude, hostile approach in the mix, sorting this out without a rewind looks like a nightmare. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, two egregious matters I just found looking through the version history, which I have reverted here, include replacing one reference to an independent source with a reference to a website that editor may have a COI with, while not changing any of the subsequent places where the previous reference was subsequently invoked. Then, citing a pre-existing unreferenced paragraph to JVL (which already isn't the best source), but the JVL article doesn't support any of the text of the paragraph. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

As another note Don Gavi dos Reis II seems to be habitually reverting maintenance tags place on the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Prove to me any of the sources I wrote were more incorrect or biased more so than the sources that existed before. And yes, I do interpret your hawkish administration as racial bias, understand that an entire appartus has been built on my family's silence and I can no longer sit idle when no one in real life, internationally, or otherwise, intends to speak the truth. So if we will democraticise information, I see no issue with brandishing all of the facts I've found over my years of toils. The sources I provided are rock solid and peer reviewed, the others are part of an actual ongoing dispute, which is obviously historical in nature (and thus relevant to the page) because the page is about Barbadian Jewish history.

I upgraded the wikipedia website with specific geneological connections that will help members of the Dutch Sephardic community contextualise their own names. Not with my own "invented" reality, but literally with the archival records, interpretation, and secondary sourcing that infrastructure led to in contemporary times.

What is the reality, is that my effort of dispelling blatant fabrications is tied inherently to decolonisation in Barbados. Which, is truly tragic in 2026. Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:COI, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and WP:OR, are just some of the Policies and Guidelines you need to read. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

And may I ask peer reviewed by who? As far as I can see, the references you have added are all User Generated, or Self Published. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

you clearly aren't reading the laura leibman scholarship or the actual references themselves, i don't run the barrow lousada website, valrie sheppard's page, or the barbadian archives dude, I'm literally just the person compiling the information and working with what we actually have as infrastructure. Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Though you are correct in that you did add Laura Leibman's book, though you cited no page numbers. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Problem is, if you're the only one in the world telling the "truth" then we can't possibly be the second. We don't adjudicate matters or interpret documents or right great wrongs, we simply report what reliable, independent, published sources say about subjects. Much of what you have used isn't from published sources, and some of the other things are simply documents. But as noted above, we don't interpret documents here; if we connect a dot, it's because a reliable source already did. We don't get to connect the dots and when editing on English Wikipedia, you don't get to either. If the reliable sources get things wrong, then so do we, by design.

So much of this seems like it would be suitable for your personal website, not for Wikipedia. And as for your conduct, things like accusing other editors of being racists, you either need to stop that stuff immediately or bring some pretty big receipts. And by big receipts, I mean significant evidence, not just that they're not letting you do whatever you want on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

And in case it's not clear, your opinions on these articles on Wikipedia hold absolutely no more weight than that of any other editor in good standing. Any editor in good standing has just as much right to edit these articles as you do, no matter the race, nationality, or creed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That article is an utter mess, written in first person, discussing the author's own investigations (so it would seem the author is linked to running the Crypto-Jewish Alliance instagram account), mass copyvios of digitised archives and social media posts, various bold claims with no citations, sentences which are just "see references at website x". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

what do you want from us, mano? When will it be enough? Don Gavi dos Reis II (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

See this comment -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@C.Fred Including "I will correct the historical record by force". David10244 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It's going to be awful hard if we're not able to get this editor to the talk pageS to discuss more. Let's just block them from main namespace and see if they have the ability to conduct themselves normally in any talk discussion. Some overall points maybe valid just the approaches is so undesirable for anyone involved.Moxy🍁 21:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems an admin has partial blocked them from the article in question. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Don Gavi dos Reis II, I have partially blocked you from editing History of the Jews in Barbados. You have a self-declared conflict of interest, and you have repeatedly broken our policies in trying to impose your views on that article. You edit warred, used unreliable sources, cast aspersions on other editors, and tried to declare ownership over the article. You now need to make edit requests on the talk page and seek to reach consensus. Please learn how Wikipedia works or you will find yourself blocked entirely. You might be right that the history of Sephardic Jews on Barbados isn't being told correctly (I have no idea either way), but you're not going about it the right way. Fences&Windows 21:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Don Gavi dos Reis II please humour me just for a minute or two.

• Even if it's only for a moment, ask yourself whether there is at all possible that this website has some policies and guidelines that you're not fully familiar with.
• If you think this is possible, then ask yourself whether it's likely that this is a misunderstanding rather than anything malicious.
• If that's also possible, could this misunderstanding be sorted out by calmly talking to other, more experienced Wikipedia editors?

If you have strong knowledge of the subject and other editors understand Wikipedia editing really well, perhaps the best way to improve the article is to work with them and not against them? If editors who've been editing Wikipedia for several years say that particular sources are needed, you can find and present them; those same editors can also help you look through what you've found to decide what's suitable for Wikipedia and what isn't.
It might be that none of your sources are suitable - if that happens, you try to understand why your previous sources weren't acceptable and use that newfound knowledge to find even better sources.
You've only been editing for a day or two, there's no possible way for anyone to learn everything about neutrality, original research and appropriate sourcing in such a short time. Nobody expects you to, we only ask that you seek help when needed and accept that same help when it's offered to you.
Put the wellbeing of the article above your personal feelings about the subject, just for a while so you can be truly neutral and write the best article possible. If you're unable to work objectively, perhaps it's best to leave the subject to others. Blue-Sonnet 22:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This editor's edits to Barbados , , and Nidhe Israel Synagogue are also problematic. In the last, they plopped in their preferred source and then dropped in the Dutch Jews mid-sentence, leaving an awkward sentence in which the Portuguese were suppressing Dutch Jews in Amsterdam (and, naturally, not supported by the source either). They also added grave desecration later in the same edit, also not supported in their citation. I'm thinking a topic-ban from Barbados may be more appropriate, especially given they've given no indication that they understand the problems and are willing to change their approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, the partial block is an interim measure with no prejudice on further sanctions. A topic ban is appropriate unless the user can rapidly change their behaviour. Fences&Windows 08:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, inappropriate was a bad word to use; I wasn't intending to suggest the action taken was unreasonable. Only that it is appropriate after this discussion for a wider block on this editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple IP addresses

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

---

After reporting that a single-purpose account with an inappropriate username engaged in this AfD and subsequently reporting that a sock account was used in the discussion, now there is ~2026-27256-83 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) operating multiple IP addresses (see ~2026-26283-85 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26423-40 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26512-90 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26469-80 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-26702-42 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-27208-01 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), ~2026-27281-75 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and ~2026-27293-24 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)) and publicly thanking them for their contributions to the article. I don't know if there's a mechanism to stop this behaviour (blocking IP addresses will probably be followed by other IP addresses), but there must be a way for something to be done. My next step will probably be reporting this to WMF Trust and Safety and WMF Legal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Temporary accounts. There is nothing unusual about an unregistered user having multiple TA numbers over multiple days; indeed, if they're using private browsing or have cookies set to auto-dump, they'll have a new temporary account every time they open their browser. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in using them for productive purposes. The problem is that all these accounts are used in an attempt to salvage an article through aggressive behaviour with personal attacks against me. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The only personal attack happening here is yours towards me, calling me AI etc, and your attack against the notability of the subject in that AfD that you've mentioned calling them a local influencer that hasn't accomplished anything. I'm trying to Assume a good faith but Using your Wikipedia Account Age as a leverage, and reporting me without any evidence because you feel like that when you don't know how to answer to the facts is everything but not a good faith.

Question for the Admins: Can any administrator tell me If it's possible to somehow officialize this account, not create a new one or something like that but the edits that I've already made here to be part of my permanent officialized account? ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not possible to do that, but you could create an account and then all your future edits will linked to that account (as long as you log in): https://auth.wikimedia.org/enwiki/wiki/Special:CreateAccount ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

How to correctly do that without abusing the rules of multiple accounts? I want to migrate my temporary account to a permanent one or whatever is the best option to not face allegations like this one here? ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well obviously nothing you do can prevent other people from making unfounded allegations, but it is totally appropriate for someone to transition from temporary to permanent account; if you do create an account and engage in an ongoing discussion where you’ve already participated, it would be good form in your first edit to make clear that you’re the same person. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the Input, it means a lot. I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but here since I know about myself as a reader. Once I get a confirmation and approval from an Admin to proceed with the method you mentioned above I will be more than happy to do it. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Saying that a subject is not notable is not an attack; discussing the notability of subjects is an important part of our mission. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The Bushranger Indeed, but these TAs geolocate to at least four different countries in two continents, so this is either meatpuppetry or proxy use... Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

An editor raised a concern in the AfD that AI might have been used to generate the comments of the primary IP address. I didn't think about this as a possibility at first, but it shouldn't be ruled out at all. Note that their comments contain multi-paragraph in-depth analyses of my edit history, make comparisons to other Wikipedia articles and, most importantly, appear very quickly after mine. So, the primary IP address in the AfD seems to be operated by someone with an extremely high processing power. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there any actual evidence these are the same person? KS hasn’t provided any that I can see, and their comments on the AfD show a low level of care about similar evidentiary questions (e.g., the false statement about LinkedIn). ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

1. They were supporting my point, and were pointing towards your analysis as an AI.
2. Through my life I was called smart person several times, but It's my honor to be called extremely high processing power individual.
3. As I mentioned bellow, please when you run out of arguments against the "extremely high processing power" individual, just admit that you are wrong instead of doing false accusations, Thank you!

~2026-27256-83 (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Your writing here at least is quite distinguishable from an AI/LLM/chatbot. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the only account I am currently using. It is possible that I previously had another account, but Opera logged me out and I was unable to recover it. The account I publicly thanked has no connection to me beyond that acknowledgment.

If there is a way to formally verify or officialize my temporary account status, I would be happy to do so if that provides additional reassurance. However, I am not abusing any rules or operating multiple accounts inappropriately.

Additionally, pointing out factual matters, such as someone writing articles about their co-workers, is not a personal attack against you. Filing reports or making accusations without evidence simply because arguments are running out is not productive and does not help move the discussion forward constructively. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Not an administrator, but you should be fine to create a permanent account without being called out to use multiple accounts. Just note that this TA was what you were previously known by on the User page. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 13:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you both of you @SuperJames888 and @~2026-28259-76 for the clear instructions. Once this discussion is closed I will create an account and I will mention this Temporary Account on my User Page, and attach note to my first comment from that account on a discussions that I was part of with this account. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Note there's often no explicit closure of these discussions and there's nothing blocking you from doing that as soon as you like. Morwen (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification @Morwen. I will create a permanent account and I will reply here. This is my last edit from this temporary account. ~2026-27256-83 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

From this point onwards this will be my permanent account. Before creating this one, my TA was @~2026-27256-83

Thank you @Morwen, @SuperJames888, @~2026-28259-76 for your instructions.

I've added the TA to my user page, is there any other steps that I need to take. I'm aware that once I comment on a discussion where I was active with my TA, I should make it clear that it's the same person. Is there anything else that I need to be aware of?

And to clarify once again, I've just checked the other TAs mentioned above and I don't even agree with most of the contributions. RockyKT (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

It is possible that I previously had another account, but Opera logged me out and I was unable to recover it.

I found out which account was that, it's @~2026-26469-80.

My first contribution was through that one, after that when I wanted to contribute again after I wrote my message I noticed that Wikipedia created a new account for me @~2026-27256-83 and since then that account stayed logged in. I don't recognize any of the other TAs. So there wasn't any misuse from my side or breaking any of the Wikipedia rules. RockyKT (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger, Black Kite, ~2026-28259-76, CoffeeCrumbs, Morwen, and SuperJames888: Any thoughts on the behaviour? Many of the comments of this IP address (now RockyKT) in the noted AfD contain thorough research of my edit history and link me to people that I wrote Wikipedia articles about, such as Anita Angelovska-Bežoska (I am not sure what does this mean, why it is relevant for the AfD and how it creates a safe environment to contribute.). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  How is that relevant to this discussion? Nevertheless, I will address it briefly.

  The “research of my edit history” you describe simply involved reviewing your public contributions and article creations, which are accessible through a single click on your contributions page. That does not require any unusual effort or “high processing power,” as you characterize it.

  I reviewed them because, throughout the AfD discussion, you repeatedly positioned yourself as a strong authority on sourcing standards and notability requirements. As a newer contributor, I wanted to understand the standards you apply in practice, particularly in relation to biographies of living persons (BLPs).

  One of the articles I reviewed was about Anita Angelovska-Bežoska, which is also a BLP. In that article, I observed extensive use of primary sources, interviews, statements from the subject herself, and institutional press releases from the bank where she works. I then noticed that your username publicly identifies you with the same institution (you were the one putting your Real Name as username, I didn't dox it).

  What surprised me was the apparent inconsistency in sourcing standards. In one case, primary and institution-connected sourcing appeared acceptable when writing about a colleague or associated figure, while in the AfD sources connected to organizations such as European Space Agency were dismissed as irrelevant or insufficient by you.

  That said, I would like to say that this is ultimately separate from the multiple-account allegation being discussed here. If there are concerns regarding the AfD itself, those should remain at the AfD, not here. If there are concerns regarding potential conflict of interest issues, those can be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard in the following days when i find time to open a discussion in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. And if there are concerns regarding my account, I am fully willing to address them here.

  I would still like to assume good faith. Initially, I understood this thread as a concern regarding alleged misuse of multiple accounts. However, after those allegations were not substantiated, the discussion appears to have shifted toward my conduct more generally. From my perspective, this gives the impression that the focus is no longer on evidence of account misuse, but rather on finding alternative grounds for sanctions for my account after I raised concerns regarding possible COI-related inconsistencies from your side. RockyKT (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  RockyKT, if KS has not made the connection on-Wikipedia between their account and the person of the same name, you probably should not be doing so (although I agree that in the case of an editor using their real name as their account name this is a kind of trivial form of WP:OUTING). If you want to bring up issues of COI editing (which is a reasonable thing to do), the right venue is WP:COIN.

  KS, your posts all seem very heavy on conspiricizing and very light on both evidence and substance. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't posted personal info or did any outing about something that can't be found on the well documented Wikimedia Category that he created about himself, I'm not linking him to an individual based on any information outside of Wikimedia Foundation, It's clear as day that he linked his profile to that specific real identity. About the COI Editing, I've started building the case, probably I will open discussion on WP:COIN in several days, I won't discuss it here since it's not a place.

  Thank you for input. You've helped me a lot about the Wikipedia Rules and the proper way to deal with specific situations. RockyKT (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I deliberately revealed information about myself and linked it to my real name (I never thought that someone would argue with it one day.), and I've also created the article about Anita Angelovska-Bežoska on the English Wikipedia (note that this article clearly meets WP:NBLP as a governor of a national central bank, whereas Martina Dimoska's notability has to be demonstrated, so the comparison is inappropriate). However, not every personal acquaintance produces a conflict of interest. Writing articles about notable people you know personally is very common. Furthermore, Wikipedians write articles about Wikipedians they know personally, especially those who have won the Wikimedian of the Year, but it doesn't mean there's a conflict of interest. The fact that you can easily find personal information about me outside of Wikipeda doesn't make a case to (mis)use them in discussions on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTING for more details). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion is drifting away from the initial thread. There are other places for those discussions. RockyKT (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Very Polite Person accuses me of not reading sources

Very Polite Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

So, I was critiquing a source on Talk:Earthquake light in this diff , which included commentary on the book, quotes, and page numbers therein. I think the quotes and page numbers are reasonably strong evidence that I had a look through that source while I was critiquing it.

Along comes a Very Polite Person, who clearly likes this source a lot:

• Apologies, did you actually open and read the book....The whole book is a physicist absurdly meticulously (seriously, it's incredible) cataloging the history of earthquakes and their lore in Japan as a scientist. It's as far from fringe as you can get....You're criticizing the reporting of history.
• Perhaps you should confirmn you've actually examined the source, which you patently have not, or else you'd know that your remarks are completely obvious that you haven't. You even admit here you don't know what's going on. (No, I didn't admit any such thing.)
• You've already been demonstrably pushed down above (by Guy no less) for having standards that are unreasonably stringent even by normal Wikipedia standards. No editor is empowered (as you have been chided more than once by more than one editor) or has a whiff of any special juju to have sterner standards. Please do not pretend, again, that you do. It's a waste of all our time. The source is perfectly fine and is a historical overview of Japanese earthquake and history lore that you have not read. Opinions are to be discardable if they have not actually read the source. (I'm not allowed to critique sources)
• VPP also makes an irrelevant argument for claiming a source is reliable: World Scientific is literally a Wikimedia and Wikipedia partner.

I challenge VPP's claim that I haven't read the source: Hey look. If I hadn't read the source, how do you think I got the page numbers I listed in my post? How was I able to quote the source in different places?

• VPP doubles down: I put page numbers on every single site with the RP tag. Your interpretations were so far off what is written in the book and incorrect I assumed you hadn't actually cracked open the page. You're telling me you read all those chapters twice like I did, and you somehow came away from it that this guy's a fringe crackpot hyping bullshit? Truly? (I did not read every chapter in it twice, because I'm not obsessed with the book.)
• Replies to create annoyance It's OK to admit you're wrong. Again.
• Your rather fixated fixation was on the footnote which is why I immediately followed the asterisk. Information in footnotes are 100% fine; you can't even pretend to say there is a policy saying we can't use text in a book because it appears in the footnote.....Complaints are a waste of everyone's time. Action it please. What is your preferred wording and why? Explain your why as I did above. (I'm fixated?)
• Annoying pings on a patch that I'm obviously watching Hi @[Geogene are you going to answer this or ignore it or can I close this section resolved?
• What? That's a nonsequitur. What are you even doing? That's literally physcist still discussing from the bottom half of page 22 the Kobe survey studies and that 25% of respondents mentioned things like that. Then are you complaining that it's a black and white scan instead of a color scan where the photo is...? Do you have any substantive policy complaints or is this just to like... what are you even doing? (I wasn't complaining about that photo being in black and white, but I described it as such accurately. I obviously reviewed the source.)
• Please provide actionable improvement suggestions then and address my findings that do unambigously seem to prove these unfamliar foreign sources are quite reliable based on their linked vetting above. The silly journal grant chasing clubs aren't in charge of what is reliable. WP:SATISFY
• Absolutely not. You can't just say "I was right" when I proved you wrong with links as I did with Nil Einne. You remove it, it's vandalism. You notice all the other people accusing me of bad stuff all seem to have left too? Your standards are unreasonable compared to everyone else's. Your acceptance of that is irrelevant. Honestly, go write an article or something.

VPP is very confrontational and annoying, and seemingly low competency at times, for example, thinking that inclusion in the Wikipedia Library means everything they publish is automatically RS. "All the other people accusing me of bad stuff all seem to have left too". If enough people are accusing VPP of bad stuff all the time, maybe it should be looked into. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Earthquake light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One way of handling this would be to formulate an RfC question regarding a significant point of disagreement. I could watch the article and ensure comments for such an RfC were reasonable, and could guide editors away from going against the spirit of whatever the RfC concludes in the future, issuing sanctions if required. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Earthquake light#RfC: How should earthquakes lights be categorized?

I would encourage administrator attention to the RfC given the potential for disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've had this too. A few concerning thing have been happening at this article, but VPP's schtick of (implausibly) claiming to have read everything, while accusing fellow editors of not reading / ony skimming sources, is not conducive to a collaborate effort. For example here:

  Am I literally the only person who has read every word of every source that is accessible? Do you all not pay to get access and just skim headers or something?

  Bon courage (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  VPP's schtick of (implausibly) claiming to have read everything

  Any editor ever admitting to using sources they have not read needs to be site banned even if their name is Jimmy Wales. If any of y'all are NOT reading them, why are you even here?

  Is this entire prolonged state of crisis on Earthquake light because I have broken site policy by brazenly trying to improve it to a WP:GAN nomination and I literally don't care what the brute squad at WP:FTN thinks? Let me know when any adult level issues with the page arise. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 06:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just a grandiosity check: you haven't read "everything" (i.e. "every word of every source that is accessible"). In general assuming editors discussing sources have read those actual sources (or at least the relevant parts) is a kind of baseline WP:AGF, and constantly implying they haven't is insulting and aggressive. The problem at this article is not really about any forthcoming WP:GAN nomination, but the manner of communication on the Talk page, which seems to be getting worse not better. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ASPERSION. Are you implying that I'm lying and I have not in fact read every earthquake light related word that I have been able to access, even repeatedly translating them every which way I can to keep it as dry as I can? So at last, now the pivot is that I'm lying.

  Fuck WP:AGF I guess? Or fuck me? What the fuck is even going on here? I suppose next I'll be accused of WP:OWN for adding like 30k of content to start GAing the page. Nevermind I literally offered one user to rip out an entire paragraph if they wanted. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  You did not claim to have "read every earthquake light related word that I have been able to access", but "every word of every source that is accessible". Words have meaning. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  You don't need to read every word. If you find a reliable source saying that X is true because of Y, you don't need to continue reading to say that Y is connected to Z. It might help, but it's not required. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• I also have a problem with VPPs behavior, and am seeing problems with WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:BLUDGEONING, and WP:SEALIONING.

Full disclosure: my first response the personal attacks and incivility aimed at me was to respond in much that same way. That was wrong, and I apologize. When I realized my error, I withdrew and started avoiding interactions with VPP. You can see both of our bad behaviors at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Removal of skeptical material and sources at Earthquake light.

VPP appears to have a serious problem with the fringe theories noticeboard, skeptics in general, and me in particular. Here are some quotes:

And for the record, this will not even be the 4th or 5th article I've taken that silly unread skeptics dismissed as bullshit and turned them into upstanding WP:GA and WP:GAN citizens

Guy's honestly weird exaggerations...

You FTN [Fringe theories/Noticeboard] enthusiasts have trained yourselves to never yield an inch even in argumentation, because you assume I'm going to flip off the deep end and civility myself. Nah.

You've lost AGF because you are flat out lying and need to be called out now

(In response to another editor writing "Please stop with the personal attacks") More than happy to, but in no scenario will I allow Macon to unchallenged flat out lie about me or my works, nor should anyone ever be accept to tolerate, suffer, or AGF or not call out overt lies.

I am going to WP:FA every one of those sacred articles that are apparently intended to be in a broken state. Every one. (emphasis in original)

I'm increasingly thinking Guy really did manage to (extremely pointlessly) poison the well here in his complete kneejerk misunderstanding of what I was barely even beginning to do.

Do you all even realize how plainly and transparently manipulative and theatrical it is? You guys probably don't even realize you do it at this point. It doesn't work.

You are clearly too obsessed with your relentless victimhood to understand the question I asked.

You better have an apology ready. These odious little FTN [Fringe theories/Noticeboard] baiting games are tiresome.

Can I go back to just collecting obscure science history like I have been doing now, or would you like to continue being pointlessly cruel about me some more? I'm fine with whatever makes you feel better, since none of this has had any lasting emotional impact on me nor will it. I gained nor lost nothing because I wasn't after anything.

Why are you deciding to be a bully? What did I do to you?

I think there's still an extra weird thing going on with this one, that feels genuinely weird even by the... sometimes (yes, I feel highly performative at times) hostility of this board.

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Remind me what article edit I did that caused you to open the WP:FTN thread about me?

For the unaware, I removed a source that multiple other editors sanctioned AND TOOK FURTHER. That's it. But I'm the asshole... for then just adding content, addressing concerns 1 by 1 (they wanted less primary, I got much less primary, etc.). I get accused of fabricating Nat Geo quotes. I prove that wrong with obvious diffs. No apologies.

I can't OWN something I'm not stopping anyone from editing, and offering to work with them. Me: cool, what sentence are we working on? Other: Stop pushing POVs. Someone wants to make the article better, cool, for for it. It's: earthquake light, not UFOs, not earthquake prediction, just earthquake lights. I don't even have a POV to push. "Weird thing we don't know what, here is it's history", is my POV. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 07:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Your content is fine, but this is a dispute about your personality. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have read about twenty of Bon Courage's comments and their sole contribution is the repetition that every source and every statement is fringe. NASA is fringe Correction, they state that this is a fringe source, VPP happened across it via a separate NASA source; the Smithsonian is fringe; National Geographic is fringe; synonyms for said are fringe (no seriously, they stated that 'noted' – as in 'made a note of' – is a fringeward directed term); history is fringe. The only point I could half agree with is that either the 'history' section is overdeveloped, or the rest of the article is underdeveloped. Thus, I am not surprised that VPP is frustrated, I'm frustrated having read the talk page. Geogene is being needlessly combative, verging on insufferable. VPP is excessively on the offensive, though I am somewhat sympathetic considering the context of the thoughtless chirping of 'fringe' at every turn outlined here. Fiveby, by contrast to all others, has conducted themselves irreproachably. For the next one of Geogene, Bon Courage, or VPP that contributes more heat to that talk page: PBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have been involved in this discussion and would agree with @Mr rnddude regarding this. I think there's quite a bit of acrimony that has nothing to do with this specific article being expressed in that discussion. It's alarming to see someone say an academic publisher with a good reputation should be treated as WP:FRINGE for geology just because it also publishes books on Traditional Chinese Medicine. However not every discussion of every contested source should be treated as a life or death struggle. I don't edit as much on weekends and am mostly mobile so I wasn't yet able to look for reviews of the book on Wikipedia library and my suggestion to look for reviews was ignored in favor of "It's fringe because I am suspicious of what it says" vs "nothing a reputable press publishes can be fringe" neither of which are useful approaches. It seems like the only useful comment regarding the reliability of this specific source came from @Fiveby who pointed out the author says in the foreword that some of the material in the book was previously rejected by peer reviewed journals. If these other editors cannot play nice with each other then a mutual iban might be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia refers to topic areas, and so saying a source is fringe is usually shorthand way of saying it engages with such areas in ways which depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. If's quite common for whole publications (or even series) from nominally reputable publishers to be treated as fringe on that basis, e.g. the Weil Integrative Medicine Library series from OUP or anything in Elsevier's Homeopathy journal. In fact such assessments are necessary to ensure policy compliance with regard to WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. However, such assessments are not subjects for WP:ANI which is meant to address "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Bon courage (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, what I'm saying is that the argument that a reputable publisher is WP:FRINGE in one domain because it publishes work that is fringe in an entirely dissimilar domain is not how we assess these matters. To your case: We don't call Elsevier's history journals fringe on the basis of them publishing a journal about homeopathy. Now I have actually had a chance in the last half-hour to do some digging and I've shared the results on the article talk page. In short I don't think this source is a good source. But I ascertained that by looking at citations and reviews of the work along with Fiveby's comment regarding the book's material having been rejected from peer reviewed sources rather than my own gut feeling. And that's kind of what I'm getting at here. The problem isn't whether this specific source is fringe. The problem is the behavioural one of yourself, Guy Macon, Geogene and VPP using what should be a rather straightforward source review as yet another theater to air mutual grievances. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It is also possible (though less usual) for entire publisher to be deemed unreliable (see WP:CITEWATCH). As to behaviour ... sorry what? As a relative newcomer both to this topic and to the editor in question (I came across the thead at FTN), you really need to substantiate this accusation about an apparently fast-established "grievance" with some diffs. Bon courage (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean it’s obvious that you have grievances with VPP? You’ve detailed some of them above in this thread, and the two of you have gone off on a (frankly ridiculous) subthread based on construing each others’ remarks in the least generous way possible. (I happen to think that you have the more convincing substantive argument, but come on.) ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I never said that everything a publisher publishes is categorically fringe because they produce some fringe output in one particular domain. I said that because even reputable publishers produce some fringe output, no publisher is automatically reliable across the board.

The thread in question:

World Scientific appears to be a reputable publisher from what I can find. Simonm223 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of them being disreputable, but they publish some other things that Wikipedia would consider fringe. Studies in Traditional Chinese Medicine [6] and acupuncture [7]. I didn't find any reviews of the Ikeya M book, but it did inspire an award-winning poem [8]. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry that you misunderstood me, but I never claimed that a publisher becomes categorically unreliable for publishing acupuncture. But my point was that even reputable publishers can publish fringe here and there. Geogene (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Probably legitimate complaints and grievances all around. Best thing probably is to give those up and focus on the content. VPP i like some of your approach to content here and FTN can maybe be helpful if you can truly take the fringe concerns on board. fiveby(zero) 14:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think letting bygones be bygones and focusing on content is absolutely the best possible outcome here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This is besides the point of this thread and is now being discussed elsewhere anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Well, second best to the community finally deciding to torch FTN to the ground as one of the most profoundly toxic net-negative drains on community resources, anyway. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Whereas this post is healthy and constructive? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you've leapt to the conclusion that it's not? On the one hand, the observation was meant to be incredibly hyperbolic and intended in generally good humor, since clearly the proferred course of action is not actually going to be a result of this discussion. On the other hand, in no way would I view that result, in the unlikely event it did happen, to be anything less than an amazing development. That space genuinely does generate more contention, protracted battles of will, and longterm grudges than any other single forum on this project, bar none, and there's a serious question (which I am hardly the first to voice) as to whether it generates remotely enough useful outcomes to compete with the super-charged personal disputes that regularly spill out of it. And it is in no way bad faith, disruptive, or even uncharitable of me to have formed or shared that personal opinion, whether I do it soberly or wryly. It's not like I lobbed a PA at an individual. It's a namespace: we're allowed to have favourable or unfavourable opinions about their net utility to the project, and there's very much a reason that forum has developed such a reputation for generating problems. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, arguably, its scope has been mostly absorbed by WP:RS/N and WP:NPOV/N. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

By WP:COIN as well, to some extent. And though those forums are hardly devoid of conflict themselves, the discussions therein generally manage to stay with the bounds of civility with far greater regularity. I'm a solid !vote in support, if the community ever gets serious about vetting the perennial deprecation proposal. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you've leapt to the conclusion that it's not? On the one hand, the observation was meant to be incredibly hyperbolic Amazing. You might ask yourself: Is writing intentionally in a "incredibly hyperbolic" way generally received by you as in good humor when you don't agree with it? Do you find that when other people write in "incredibly hyperbolic" ways that this brings down the temperature in discussions, and generally leads to constructive engagement? Perhaps then you will recognize the unintentional irony of your contribution. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to open that discussion at WP:VPR. Also, WP:FTN's mother was a hamster and its father smelt of elderberries. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

We have all gotten stressed, and we all seem to be throwing accusations around.

I apologize if anything I said gave negative impressions. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Very Polite Person user behavior

I feel like in the back and forth of talking about sourcing (which is off-topic at ANI), my comment about ownership, bludgeoning, and civil POV pushing which turns into personal attacks got lost in the shuffle. I would like to bring the focus back to user behavior.

At User talk:Very Polite Person/Archive 1#September 2024 and especially in the following unblock request, we see many of the same issues. Then, as now, VPP immediately went on their best behavior as soon as the ANI report was filed and, to their credit, kept up the good behavior for a long time. Then the behavior started creeping back in a little at a time.

The same thing happened a year later when a lengthy previous ANI report (Started here, focused on VPP here) identified many of the same issues, but none of the proposed sanctions gained any traction.

By the time I got involved the behavior pattern had come roaring back, and I dreaded bringing up even the most minor disagreement because of the vicious attack I knew would come. Again, my immediate reaction was to reply in kind. That was wrong, and I withdrew from further interactions as soon as I realized what I was doing. Again, I apologize.

So, what to do? I propose a very short block that contains a clear warning about what user behavior is and is not allowed on Wikipedia and the probable consequences of drifting back into old habits. I don't see any reason for a lengthy block of a user who responds well to short blocks, and I can't think of any sort of topic ban or interaction ban that would be effective. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Please link the article space edit of mine to Earthquake light that justified the entire WP:FTN thread to attack me.

Please link evidence of WP:OWN behavior in article edits to Earthquake light.

That thread is here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Removal_of_skeptical_material_and_sources_at_Earthquake_light

NOTE to readers: my removal of the initial Sheaffer URL that so upset Guy was endorsed by multiple editors. Others--not me--then removed all the other skeptic stuff. I somehow got blamed for it all, and Guy was upset I aggressively refused blame for something I did not do. This really feels like retaliatory salt because Guy is/was ruled against in consensus by other editors for article outcomes on Earthquake light. There's no history of any policy violations here in my work on Earthquake light, and if it's against the rules to vigorously defend yourself against false statements and poisoning of the well of your actions, then I guess I'm guilty of that. It is not against the rules to do that. No editor is required to allow others to misconstrue their work as you did.

If you want to ban me show the edits with diffs related to Earthquake light on which dates that justify your argument. WP:ONUS to you.

I am not asking for any punitive actions against Guy for his now tenditious harassment and bullying of me. I want him to leave me alone. If he will not, I will ask for a one-way IBAN from him towards me. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Last 5000 edits, any part of Wikipedia.
• Last 5000 edits, only to Articles.
• Last 5000 edits, only to User space. <- NOTE: a large amount of my edits live here in my Drafts before they go live.
• Last 1000 edits, only to Wikipedia internal pages.

Here's my edit history that I keep linked right on User:Very Polite Person. Every part of it. Nothing to hide. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I dread to reply again, but I just noticed yet another straight up fabrication:

By the time I got involved the behavior pattern had come roaring back, and I dreaded bringing up even the most minor disagreement because of the vicious attack I knew would come.

This is literal fiction. I don't need to provide diffs because they don't exist. Guy and I have no interactions that I can recall outside of Earthquake light, which is what upset him. If you see here: Talk:Earthquake_light/Archive_1 we got on perfectly fine and congenially. This all derives from my upheld removal of a bad source from a climate denier who Guy Macon wanted to keep installed as a source on Earthquake light.

Consensus turned against him, and since I was the one that began that process, after he struggled to keep that climate denier's POV in that article for months... I don't know if this is retaliation for not succeeding in a content dispute to keep a climate change denier as a source, but it feels like it. I hope it is not. What am I supposed to get a block for exactly? Getting consensus for my efforts, out-effectiving someone, declining to be a doormat?

The tone of "but I expected to win" is unpleasant. I didn't remove the skeptic section and no one has undone my article build out, and the RFC that Guy himself started is upholding the position that I advocating in the first place. I just keep getting attacked over and over year over year for vigorously defending myself against multiple people over why my edits are solid for articles... and every single time after all the chaos, my edits don't get undone (98% or so I think, I checked), and now RFCs are upholding my positions.

Is it entirely possible I really do not have any issues with my article editing and maybe I don't need to be pilloried for doing so after all? And again, all this pointless drama is because I refuse to just eat shit and be labeled a bad fraudulent editor (again) for fine edits? Beats me.

If this isn't retaliation, I don't know what is. I do not want Guy punished. Do the fish thing and just tell him to leave me alone. I don't even want the apology that I frankly not unrealistically think I'm personally due. I just want him to stop. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about the behavior of Very Polite Person towards other editors. Not about who was right or who was wrong. Not about the quality of VPP's sources or edits. Their behavior towards other editors. Behavior that multiple administrators noted the last time VPP was reported at ANI.

Here is a partial list of personal attacks by VPP against me and several other editors. I can provide dozens more if needed.

• Stop talking in FTN gibberish please and just speak english.
• It's OK to admit you're wrong. Again.
• Your standards are unreasonable compared to everyone else's. Your acceptance of that is irrelevant. Honestly, go write an article or something.
• Guy Macon is literally just flat out lying here. I will not retract that because lying is not an allowed 'tactic' here and you all must be aware of his WP:GAMING attempts here to POV push a WP:FRINGE position.
• ...every single person (no offense--you too) took good attempts to paint me as some horrific POV pushing monster, when all I was doing was getting justifiably angry at repeated lies getting thrown at me...
• You've lost AGF because you are flat out lying and need to be called out now.
• Perhaps you should confirmn you've actually examined the source, which you patently have not, or else you'd know that your remarks are completely obvious that you haven't. You even admit here you don't know what's going on...
• ...in no scenario will I allow Macon to unchallenged flat out lie about me or my works, nor should anyone ever be accept to tolerate, suffer, or AGF or not call out overt lies. Win on the merits or shut up should be doctrine.
• I don't even understand what you guys are fighting over. Am I literally the only person who has read every word of every source that is accessible? Do you all not pay to get access and just skim headers or something?
• I honestly have no idea what has made Guy flip off the deep handle so much here. We are perfectly fine personally until I removed the UFO blog source from Earthquake light from Sheaffer. That instantly set off Guy.
• ...this is tendentious on your part after previously insulting me on this very page in the preceding section. You are disrupting wikipedia. Stop now. Or better yet, make articles instead of trouble.
• ...the "skeptic club" is the fringe itself for not having done basic foundational historical reading on a global scale. Sorry. "Skeptic hall pass" turns out does have limits. Called reading skills.
• ...like Guy and others, you're seeing this through reactionary "watch out!!" blinders.
• Honestly, it's really kinda obvious that these kind of stinging nettle comments are just a tactical ploy to get me to lash out in some policy breaching way that makes me look like a goofy oaf, and oops, banned or something. Give me some credit.
• Of course I am defensive, when OP has flagrantly lied about me to cause disruptive framing of me and poisoning the well. I have literally no idea what absurd fictional view of my 'work' you all have, but I guarantee you are all completely wrong.
• In general it is better to not also harass and bully an editor as a gang for the better part of the week. And yet, no one can tell me what I've actually done 'wrong' beyond not wanting to have fibs told about me, and for people to bring me really articulated described issues with my content, which I can then address in a mature way with a mature editor.

NOTE: You may have noticed that among the dozens of "Guy Macon is a liar and that means my personal attacks against him are allowed" posts there is a marked absense of any description of the nature of the alleged lies. Here is my post about VPP that set off the flood of personal attacks: Anything else I wrote (and I did lose my cool and respond in kind -- that was wrong) happened well after VPPs accusations started. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Anything else I wrote (and I did lose my cool and respond in kind -- that was wrong) happened well after VPPs accusations started.

Can you link me my accusations of what toward you on what diffs that preceding your unfounded WP:FTN accusations? Are you allowed to be snarky to everyone, but none in kind to you? Do we go social golf handicaps here?

Would you link to mention to everyone the ongoing content dispute you have left off, that FTN hard rejected you on, which you and I are involved in? , or when you insulted me here on the link you just shared, which you kept escalating? This edit of yours you cite as me attacking you BEFORE is here at 02:38 12 May 2026. Is that you jumping on me at WP:FTN? Yes it is. You linked it. 02:38 12 May. Here is me at 16:20 10 May 2026. Do we interact on-wiki between 16:20 10 May and 02:38 12 May? Show me where. The next earlier interaction is here at 07:03 10 May on Earthquake light talk and the preceding, where I seem to be rather dismissive of the source, but not you. Opinions aren't entitled to validation or even really humoring. Was I blunt? No more than you.

This all began when you got upset with me not honoring your specific RFC schema here, which you have no power/authority anyway over. So a week of hot drama, because... I got consensus over you? You're the one who's been hounding me nonstop, not the other way round. You're stalking me because consensus WP:BOOMERANG of your own making cost you the section on the article you were fighting to maintain. Calling for a ban a week after a content dispute you keep trying to escalate to a behavioral issue with bad behavior takes the cake. I reject your obvious attempts to try and ban me on unearned and undeserved social capital grounds. You have no standing. Stop bullying me and accept consensus is against you at Earthquake light and say so. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support block as WP:PREVENTATIVE for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. As I tried to read through the complaints by multiple editors and make a little sense of the content dispute (though that is not the focus of ANI), it's very clear that VPP is not getting the issues with their battleground behavior and instead doubling down on pursuing editors. Their last block looks like it was for similar battleground/IDHT behavior for one week.

I'd say at least a block of one week is needed in that case to hopefully get them to step back from the dispute and also take the larger issues with their behavior seriously. I also say that in the context that when it see comments like highlighted at this ANI, I'm often starting to look at topic bans, etc., though I don't think enough has been tried to quite just yet get over that threshold. I hope that comes across as a clear warning though when an involved editor sees that when trying to take a look at what's going on because it does look to me like VPP is really driving the behavior-side issues in a WP:SEALIONING manner.

At one point editors were suggesting to just move on to focusing on content, but seeing TPP open the section about Guy Macon below after that really got me to the point of thinking admin action actually is needed for battleground mentality rather than just telling people to get back to work (again). Not addressing it would be a disservice to those who've had to deal with it while not engaging in that kind of behavior. That kind of attitude just destabilizes topics and makes it harder for other editors, especially in controversial ones. I'm not impressed by their claims of poisoning the well, etc. when their behavior actually is a problem here. Even if one is "right" on content, when you generate this much heat compared to light, it's a problem when behavior interferes in content discussion. Accusing others of poisoning the well when there actually is a problem with your behavior just tells me warnings aren't going to be effective at this point and all that's left is some sort of admin action. KoA (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Unlike everyone else, I have diffs.

Content dispute toward RSN from Earthquake light:

• VPP - May 9, 16:33 on Talk:Earthquake light. Nothing to do with Guy. Talking to others.
• VPP - May 9, 17:02 on Talk:Earthquake light. Asked Guy:

It is an interesting question. What qualifies Dunning to be an expert on this topic by our rigorous standards?

• VPP - May 9, 17:06 on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Reminded Guy to include context and asked question:

you accidentally left off the real context which is an absolute mandated requirement for RSN. I myself have been severely chastised for this. Please be careful with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_light#Citing_a_Podcaster_from_2016 This is where it is coming up from. Is Brian Dunning a credential expert to speak to the scientifically documented Earthquake lights phenomenon?

• VPP - 17:08 on Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

It is an interesting question. What qualifies Dunning to be an expert on this topic of earthquake lights, a real thing we don't understand fully, by our rigorous standards?

• VPP - 17:12 on Talk:Earthquake light. Reminded to cross post off-venue discussions, informed other user of RSN, told Guy the RSN was a good idea.
• VPP - 17:35 on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Not to Guy:

If Dunning is not any part of the seismology and related expert ecosystem, why would we put him on there at all? Isn't that like putting a poker blogger's opinion on a NASA article? Earthquake lights are not any sort of woo anything. It's just incomplete so far earth sciences.

• VPP - 17:48 on RSN. Responding to Guys complaint that I forced us to consider the article topic (??) with lots of quotes from sources.
• VPP - 17:57 on RSN. Guy is upset I am using the normal process that he began to review the sourcing. Ironically, this is the exact same behavior (vague RSN on contested article content) that folks still drag out for my making a bone headed mistake with in 2024.
• VPP - 18:03 RSN. Not to Guy:

People are allowed to add other options here to these, even if some minority of users dislike them. I have added C as an option and chosen it.

• VPP - 18:11 RSN. Nothing Guy related. Discussing RFC with other user.
• VPP - 18:12 RSN. To Guy:

If no one can demonstrate in 3~ weeks from today why Dunning is qualified to be a WP:RS for that usage in that article, we have failed if he's still in there. Prove he belongs.

• VPP - 18:20 RSN. To Guy:

I write quickly, sorry. The first sentence is my neutral position. The follow up sentences are my logic of why I support my own position and why I think it should be the site default. The supporting positions and justifications do not need to sound neutral. They have to be thorough, rigorous and convincing.

Why I got attacked at WP:FTN:

This:

• VPP - 01:10 May 10 on Talk:Earthquake light. Click here for complete section:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earthquake_light&oldid=1355556019#NPOV_and_DUE

I explained exactly why I removed it. That's the section as it still looks today, May 22, now twelve days later. This was two weeks ago.

That is it. That is all our pre-FTN interactions on Earthquake light topics. That's it. Here's my last 5000 edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Very_Polite_Person&target=Very+Polite+Person&offset=&limit=5000

I have no idea when "Guy" and I interacted prior of any significance. Last year? Everything above is a basic testy normal content dispute. Ironically, I think here, where we were "same team" back in November 2025:

• Talk:Earthquake light/Archive_1#Mass poorly explained removals

So after I removed that source at 01:10 May 10, Guy and I had apparently two (2) interactions. Guy was active on a variety of pages after 01:10 May 10. In fact, between 01:10 May 10 and 02:28 on May 12, Guy and I had two interactions and my only contact otherwise with Earthquake light on the article or Guy was:

1. Removed dead project from talk.
2. Add a category.
3. Add an archive URL.
4. Fix a broken ref.
5. Update lede.
6. Add wikilinks.
7. Me and Guy, 06:48 May 10, my explanation of why I removed a blogspot URL from Earthquake light. Where I also have to point out (first of many times) that I did not in fact remove the USGS from the page (with evidence).
8. Add a source.
9. Me to Guy: 07:03 May 10.

And for the record, this will not even be the 4th or 5th article I've taken that silly unread skeptics dismissed as bullshit and turned them into upstanding WP:GA and WP:GAN citizens, for instance Field propulsion and the two linked right at the top of that one. Look at the nonsensical AFD it got prior. I know what I'm doing. Improving Wikipedia.

Guy had this to say about me on WP:FTN at 08:22 10 May 10 next:

• Guy about me:

Not to worry. They know what they are doing! I feel honored to be graced with the presense of such a clearly superior Wikipedia editor.

The WP:FTN thread:

I had no contact initiated by me toward Guy then or vice versa until:

• GUY: 02:28 on May 12 on WP:FTN:

Very aggressive editor, lots of Sealioning. Help needed.

Guy and I had not interacted for 1 day, 19 hours at this point and we're still back on May 10 here -- two weeks ago. Very aggressive? Then I spent the next 3-5 days attacked nonstop for:

• Curating this fringe laden page: Earthquake light
• I was responsible apparently for Simon223 removing Sheaffer at 18:15 May 13, after FTN was open. Multiple editors approved Sheaffer being gone and my prior removal.
• I was responsible apparently for Bon Courage removing the Skeptics section entirely at 07:17 May 14.

So my crime, ultimately... is vigorously defending myself for having done... none of the described bad actions, and mocking the absurdity of all that being my doing and my fault?

Again: how is this not overt retaliation? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

None of this justifies the documented battleground attitude on your part and it deflects from your problematic comments. Your language about attacks, retaliation, etc. show a very clear battleground mentality of leaning in to snipe at editors, and that's the underlying issue here. After seeing this response, I actually am tempted to suggest a topic ban would help prevent disruption more than a block rather than the shorter block I initially supported. KoA (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There was no battleground attitude. We had nothing between us until 5/9/26. It's literally all there. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So because I was attacked, dogpiled, and riduculed by mulitple editors due to Guy's FTN post claiming I did bad things (which I had not--there is literally no evidence)... and because I forcefully (as forcefully as my attackers) and successfully defended myself against the false claims (the FTN, claims on article talk, and the entire upper thread drifted off based on the complete lack of evidence), I should get not just a weeklong block for clearing my name aggressively, but topic banned from Earthquake light, where the entire alleged "fringe POV" that I was pushing... is what everyone else said the article should be.

1. Get attacked left and right with made up claims and no evidence
2. Prove it's nonsense
3. Prove you were also correct about the article all along
4. Your position on the article becomes the stable one
5. Prove not only did you NOT do what you were accused of doing, provide diffs of OTHER PEOPLE doing those things

So I was correct on the content and correct on the false allegations of behavior that I did not do... but because I wasn't willing to eat shit, roll over, and accept public brutalizing, I'm the troublemaker? I just want to make sure: I'm going to be punished for proving too forcibly that the people as forcefully accusing me of bad things were wrong. All over a content dispute resolved and closed (not by me) ten days ago.

Do I get a complimentary permanent ban for my first successful WP:FA? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a good example of VPP's WP:IDHT behavior. After I documented their personal attacks against me and multiple other editors the response was "There was no battleground attitude. We had nothing between us..." as if I am not allowed to mention any personal attack that doesn't name me personally. They did the same thing earlier when I wrote

"By the time I got involved the behavior pattern had come roaring back, and I dreaded bringing up even the most minor disagreement because of the vicious attack I knew would come."

and they accused me of lying -- again -- on the theory that I cannot talk about the pattern of personal attacks that had come roaring back after a previous trip to ANI (easily documented if required) because it was directed at other editors and not at me personally.

Another example of VPP's WP:IDHT behavior; after several editors have told them that the problem is not their content but is instead how they treat other people they are once again talking about their FAs and GAs and how thet were "correct on the content" -- as if that makes how they treat others OK. I am predicting that they won't hear this either and will respond by talking about content and other editors -- everything but their own behavior.

Again, the solution seems to be a short block (even an hour would get the point across) with a strongly worded warning that the community will no longer tolerate their incivility and personal attacks, and a lengthy block if they once again play nice for a while and then resume the battleground behavior when they think nobody is paying attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Got any diffs? With dates/timestamps? What's our active dispute? Did the community overrule you on Earthquake light, yes or no?

Just let it go. This is obviously punitive. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to read whatever links Guy shares. It will be illuminating to see the sheer amount of ludicrous attacks, backhanded insults, and claims of things like fabricating data from sources I'd had to deal with if you look at the firehose of nasty replies I kept getting.

But I'm sorry if I was as snarky as the WP:FTN inhabitants or yourself. I thought that was allowed there? Or only outbound from skeptical folk, and it's not allowed to snark back? Beats me. Am I required to let folks fib about me unchallenged? Why...? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This recent arbcom principle comes to mind – "Focusing on content isn't enough" (should that be WP:FOCIE?) Bon courage (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Good, I agree. Has Guy even yet shared a single valid URL to justify his WP:FTN war on me? You know - WP:FOC?

"But his behavior" is not a valid complaint when editors were allowed to harass, lie about, and run roughshod over the user with fabrications about content, and the editor then defends himself as forcefully as he is attacked by other editors. There is no framing, no narrative, no nothing that can erase the fact that before I was inappropriately flame roasted on WP:FTN, there was no drama until everyone got upset at my defending myself just as vigorously as they were challenging me.

No one is obligated to get punched in the face. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WRONG. You are Not allowed to treat other editors like shit because (in your opinion) "they did it first". If you think you have a legitimate complaint against someone, report them an ANI, Do not spend the next week yelling about them being a liar and telling them that "they got upset" on article talk pages and noticeboards where you know your comments about other editors are off topic. Let the system deal with misbehavior by other editors. Stop pouring gasoline on the fire. WP:NOTTHEM. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you write this, on this very page, in this very section, Guy?

Anything else I wrote (and I did lose my cool and respond in kind -- that was wrong) happened well after VPPs accusations started.

Yes or no?

Was this you at 02:28 on May 12:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&diff=1353744604&oldid=1353637893

Your initial WP:FTN post 19 hours after our last interaction, as proven above? My edits on that article were to add a source in the interim. We had no interaction for 19 hours before you went to WP:FTN claiming:

Very aggressive editor, lots of Sealioning. Help needed.

Aggressive with what exactly? You're trying to indict me on your 'good name' effectively, for refusing to have my name beaten down. Again, tell me how it's not all retaliatory since the community overruled you and I refused to give up on the content, and ending up convincing others?

Stop pouring gasoline on the fire.

Funny, you're the one who has been pursuing me nonstop since May 12, ten days ago. Not the other way around. Our contribution pages do not lie. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon

Requesting he is given a trout or a one-way IBAN to keep him away from me. I don't care which, but whatever gets him to stop making up tall tales about me and trying to get me banned because he lost a content dispute apparently to consensus. He has now been hounding me for over a week because I removed a source from an article--which was endorsed by multiple editors against Guy's strongly held wishes--and keeps trying to bait me into getting into some kind of civility violation. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In general, opening a retaliatory complaint at ANI without evidence is inadvisable. If the accusation is that "tall tales" have been told and there has been WP:HOUNDING, that really needs to be backed with evidence (diffs). Bon courage (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, they are now, directly above, which is sufficient. Everyone but Guy has clearly moved on. There is no "active dispute" about anything; Guy was overruled by the community 10 days ago. At the same time, no one has provided one whiff of evidence of my "aggressive" BATTLEGROUND, and in fact as proven directly above permanently by actual diffs, Guy and I had not even engaged with each other for almost 2 days before he went to FTN claiming that I was actively doing things untoward and he needed urgent help... I was purging the skeptics or something!

Except literally none of that happened, and then for the next five days, I was repeatedly attacked by a new fellow every 4-6 hours with outlandish claims. My favorite was that I fabricated National Geographic data, which were literally... in the edit summary I added it with, still live source page, and the live archive page. My second favorite is that I somehow brawled with everyone to force a "FRINGE POV" into Earthquake light...

...and then the next day or so you all agreed with me in Guy's own RFC, which I don't think he wanted: option C... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earthquake_light#RfC:_How_should_earthquakes_lights_be_categorized?

For the last time I feel like saying it... you cant mob someone with nonsense, then when they as equally aggressively swat down all the nonsense, turn around and say, "That person fought with EVERYONE!" It does not work that way. Just like the newly invented claim--today! 10 days later!--that I am "pursuing editors" (today!) and still fighting an active dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Very_Polite_Person&target=Very+Polite+Person&offset=&limit=16000 ...where? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Diffs added as requested. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to see Guy's annotated map of my getting pummeled and abused on WP:FTN and Talk:Earthquake light for days straight, which he initiated. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Rosemeyer2022

User: Rosemeyer2022 (talk · contribs)

User Rosemeyer2022 is violating Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, is Wikipedia:Edit warring, is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and making disruptive edits.

Rosemeyer has been trying to remove well-sourced information at the article for the Racial Equality Proposal during the Treaty of Versaillies, which was an effort by Japan to propose racial equality. Academics point out that Japan's proposal was hypocritical, and Rosemeyer is suspected of trying to remove this information in 2025 given that this IP makes the exact same edit they made in the past.

Rosemeyer has made multiple attempts to remove this well-sourced information and have engaged in edit warring, such as in April 2026 which was reverted by User:Peaceray. They reverted my attempt to restore the content in May 17, 2026, as well as reverting another editor who also tried to restore the content. They are near the edge of the Three revert rule with their most recent reverts.

Beyond the edit warring, I tried to talk to them on the talk page, warning them (they had been warned before by other users) Not to mention, they have made reverts and claimed it was compromise attempts before even letting me reply.

There is unfortunately a serious POV pushing and violations of NPOV as well as lack of reliable sources. I explained in detail that they had removed well-sourced information, which they claimed "contains propaganda from Japanese soldiers who were brainwashed in prisoner-of-war camps in China...whose contradictory testimonies have been pointed out by historical societies as fabricated), and lacks historical basis." Their views unfortunately seriously indicate far-right, ultra-nationalist bias. They doubled down and said the source "contains clear fabrications by the Chinese government...In recent years, China and Russia have been engaging in a recognition war in Japan..."

Their most recent edits say things like very conspiratorial statements as well as claiming that English-speaking academic institutes are under the influence of China: "Many of the documents you cite are laundered versions of information disseminated by the Chinese government or experts under its influence, using secondary citations in academic papers... American universities are simply reprinting it without any historical criticism, and it should be noted that no academic verification has been conducted." This info is from the Chinese Government (specifically Xinhua, a state news agency, which got the source from Jillin Province) and which I am somewhat skeptical of, but it was verified by Santa Clara University of San Jose, California. They essentially are making very serious POV statements.

As for sourcing, they said: "Various counterarguments have been made from Japan, but have you actually read them?...first carefully read the counterarguments in Japanese and reconsider your own claims." Now, I am open to engaging in dialogue but you can see through the entire discussion they've never once provided an actual source despite me requesting it multiple times now. Their newest reply, does not even address my points, nor provide sources, and they just say that Wikipedia admin should decide this.

This is a significant reason why I am filing the ANI, as it is impossible to have a discussion with Rosemeyer when they POV push and refuse to cite sources, they repeatedly accuse China of spreading propaganda, China of brainwashing POWs to spread propaganda, China/Russia fueling division in Japan, China is influencing American institutions/academics, essentially bludgeoning the point by saying that the sources are all influenced by China. Now personally, I do not identify as a fan of the Chinese government + I dislike nationalism; their bias is so significant that I really can't engage in dialogue when almost every discussion post the user makes to try to refute my points is about the modern Chinese government's infilitration of American academica on a topic about Japanese racism towards non-Japanese people in the 1910s.

I will be a bit busy tomorrow but will be free to reply to any questions admin has within 24 hours of 304 UTC, 19 May.

Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

You should consider editing this to between 1/2 and 1/4 of its current length. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Cutting 3/4ths might be too much, but i will take your recommendation and cut this down a lil bit, appreciate the advice. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears to me that Rosemeyer is pushing a specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits. The following recounts all of their article edits, as over the past 4 years they have 27 edits. I am listing this here as I am not an expert in these areas, so without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself.

Japanese carpentry

Special:Diff/1214623337/1214641591 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1329504198/1330723643 Remove mentions of Chinese influence

Special:Diff/1334354614/1335758262 Reduce importance of Chinese influence

Manila Cathedral

Special:Diff/1329502622 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Special:Diff/1329619675 Changed so that US, not Japanese, responsible for destruction

Racial Equality Proposal

Edit warred to remove mention of Japanese hypocrisy (e.g., Special:Diff/1351616339)

Ben Bruce Blakeney

Special:Diff/1328284271/1351761556 Inserted statement that record of discussion of potential war crimes by US against Japan was partially suppressed during the Tokyo war crimes trials.

Biological warfare

Special:Diff/1354579762 Picture removed. Edit summary "A photograph taken on January 7, 1940, of an employee of the Health Bureau of the Manchukuo Ministry of Health conducting plague "epidemic prevention" activities in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940, was mistakenly used and has been removed." Picture is of Unit 731 victim.

Japanese war crimes

Removed same picture as above (twice): Special:Diff/1354601990 Special:Diff/1354834116

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rsjaffe for your input, I had not examined their older edits which you have pointed out as I was focused on their newer ones, but after looking over it I agree with you that Rosemeyer is definitely pushing a POV and violating NPOV by using fringe reaosns (with no citations to back it up either) in even their earlier edits.

The biggest takeaway and evidence that these are POV edits is that they've never once really inserted new information from academics (even POV pushers often try to weasel by using new sources) but here they keep repeatedly removing information, and deleting well-cited information. Also NOTE: I left them an ANI notice on their page, and they were recently active but they are not replying on this ANI and have kept to their talk page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

User is still making very POV/biased statements in their talk page, now they're saying "...a firm response is necessary against acts of history fabrication by entire nations, like in China, and Japan is also undergoing a generational shift" which is an incredibly incendiary statement. Beyond that they say arguing with other editors is "a waste of time" and they say they plan to request Wikipedia admin take action...even though they had the opportunity to talk here for days now.

Requesting admin assistance with this user. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Since I can post here as well, I will raise my concerns again. Regarding this photo album and its caption, published in the 1940s and owned by the Jilin Provincial Archives, please provide any physical evidence or verification papers that prove it is incorrect. I have requested this many times, but I have not received a single response. I do not wish to quote it because it lacks neutrality, but even in this Chinese media article

http://dangshi.people.com.cn/n/2014/0113/c138900-24103649-14.html

It is clearly stated that the photo was taken during epidemic prevention activities. The article also mentions Unit 731, but please note that this is unrelated to the photo's caption. It is against Wikipedia rules to assign a file name to a photograph and caption whose source is clearly known, without providing any evidence of relevance. Furthermore, despite repeatedly pointing this out and requesting primary sources, you have not responded at all, and instead, you have reverted the article based on a Chinese media article and blocked the IP address, which I believe goes against the spirit of Wiki, which respects consensus building through discussion. Wiki is not a scrapbook of web pages. The correct procedure is to verify and discuss any new sources presented and update any errors in the article. I would appreciate hearing the opinions of many people, as well as any counterarguments to the primary sources.Thank you. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rosemeyer, you haven't really addressed almost any of the points being raised here. I can put it in short, concise points all the issues right now.

1) You have not addressed your complete lack of sources, whether they are Japanese, English, secondary or primary, on the Racial Equality Proposal article (especially your claims that China is influencing the sources present in the article), and why you are trying to delete historian Bryan Riggs work off when you havent provided citations or sources suggesting any form of bias from him (as well as why you have been deleting well-cited information off that.)

2) You have not addressed administrator Rsjaffe's very concise and well-done research on the history of your edits, they said in this very discussion that you on four other pages since 2024 focused on removing content that either suggests Chinese influence on ancient Japanese culture or on Japanese war crimes. Rsjaffe themselves said you are pushing a "specific POV in violation of NPOV, and is using fringe or incorrect reasons for some of the edits.

3) Your most recent response is the first time you have given us an actual source on anything, which you could and should have been doing since when the discussion first started. I already provided the Santa Clara University source. Also your own source labels the article "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" and puts that same photo as "This is a reproduced photograph of personnel from the Health Care Department of the Manchukuo Ministry of National Health participating in a plague "epidemic prevention" activity in Nong'an County, Jilin Province in November 1940 (taken on January 7)." with " " for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was.

Please do not accuse me on "failing to respond", I gave you an ANI notice on May 19. Did you not notice the notification and link you were given because I posted it on your talk page? And its very hypocritical of you to claim I am not providing sources when I have provided and defended multiple sources, such as "Language Conflict and Language Rights: The Ainu, Ryūkyūans, and Koreans in Japan." by Stanley Dubinsky (University of South Carolina) and William D. Davies (University of Iowa) by two American scholars based in the US. Another source, the "Introduction: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan" is written by Israeli scholar Ayelet Zohar as well as Bryan Riggs (even if I am not a fan of his work) as well as Santa Clara University. I provided/defended these sources whilst you only now have introduced a single source. Not to mention, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources per its policy. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Sunnyediting99, I have answered your questions many times. Please do not make me repeat the same things over and over. Nevertheless, I also do not want to stoop to the level of someone who refuses to engage in discussion, I will answer the issues you have raised once again.

1. The Racial Equality Proposal Article

First of all, I apologize for initially editing the article regarding the Racial Equality Proposal without providing a solid explanation. However, during the discussion you subsequently proposed, I offered you a correction draft that kept the well-founded citations intact. You rejected it, completely reverted the article, and reported my edits to an admin. If you have no intention of even discussing the matter, please say so from the beginning.

There is no need for me to explain Bryan Rigg's work. It is modestly criticized in the English Wikipedia article and its Talk page, but please refer to the Japanese Wikipedia for details. The citations and sources suggesting bias that you are looking for—including various sources from historians and journalists criticizing its preposterous content—are all there. If you have any doubts about those sources, please discuss them there.

2. Administrator Rsjaffe's Remarks

Regarding the point made by Admin Rsjaffe, my past edits have been made by providing sources for each respective article. I have corrected clearly incorrect information written on a private individual's blog, to the official information from the Japanese government. Furthermore, I have tracked down the English literature that serves as the source for content written on the Japanese Wikipedia, cited it, and reflected it in the English Wikipedia.

I do not understand Admin Rsjaffe's true intentions in characterizing this as pushing a specific point of view, but I respect their decision stating, "So without corroboration that these are fringe/POV edits, I won't be taking administrative action myself." This is because presenting more reliable sources, exhausting discussion, and reaching a consensus aligns with Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It is a far more reasonable approach than that of someone who refuses to listen to explanations from the start and is fixated solely on maintaining the article's status quo.

3. Citations from Chinese Media and Other Sources

It is exactly as I expected, and truly makes me laugh, that you pointed out the article states, "Evidence of Japanese Crimes During the Invasion of China Resurfaces: Forced Recruitment of Comfort Women and Laborers; Germ Warfare" in response to a Chinese media article I only cited after explicitly stating I did not want to because it lacks neutrality.

Fabricated Content: From the perspective of someone who can read Japanese, Chinese propaganda is nothing but preposterous fabrication. Try pointing out the captions of the other photos in that article as well. I can clearly prove that they are completely different from the actual text of the documents shown in the photos. They are simply lining up plausible-looking photos for a domestic Chinese audience that cannot understand Japanese, writing sensationalist articles that are entirely irrelevant and baseless. That is why I have told you many times that citations from Chinese media cannot be trusted.

Epidemic Prevention: You wrote, "for epidemic prevention which suggests it is criticizing the actual nature of it versus what it was." but that is nothing more than your personal impression. Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media.

Ignored Edit Proposals: Regarding the citations of Stanley Dubinsky, William D. Davies, and Ayelet Zohar, I actually proposed an edit to you that left them intact. You did not respond to this at all and instead reverted everything—including the citation of Bryan Rigg, whom even you claim not to be a fan of. Correct?

Santa Clara University Photo: Furthermore, regarding the photo sourced from Santa Clara University: you claimed this is a secondary source and previously argued that Wikipedia's policy prioritizes secondary sources. I will repeat my answer to that once more. A secondary source that Wikipedia considers reliable is one written by scholars, published by an academic publisher, and carefully scrutinized for quality control. The Santa Clara University page you cite lacks any scholarly verification or annotation whatsoever; it merely reprints captions from Chinese media with the caveat, "According to Xinhua Press"

I completely fail to understand why you all obsess over a file name with clearly incorrect content citing a Chinese media article, going so far as to IP-block me and block my article editing on Wikimedia. To me, it simply looks like an act that damages Wikipedia's credibility. I have seen many times how people who blindly believe that caption make a fuss on social media based on this photo, only to run away when confronted with the actual primary sources. It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda.

Historical recognition is a delicate issue in any country, and while I believe complete agreement will never be reached, but I still think we should maintain respect for one another. Unilaterally labeling your opponent and demanding the exact same explanations over and over is not respectable behavior. I look forward to a meaningful discussion that involves consideration for the other party.

Finally, thank you very much for taking the time to read this message.

Let us both strive to deepen our knowledge and cultivate the intellectual refinement necessary to find common ground. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly repetitive, you have not really answered any of my points except the second one. Again, you are repeating the same things PRECISELY because you are not answering anything.

1) Give me a source, an academic source, from any author, Japanese, American, Korean, Russian, British, any academic source. You cannot genuinely tell me to look at Bryan Riggs Wikipedia page or Japanese Wikipedia, those are not acceptable answers. If you cannot actually find a single source and instead just direct me to wikipedia pages or Japanese wikipedia that is not a proper way to present citations. It is not my responsibility to find those sources that you are presenting your argument for, you have to actually cite them here, like you have for the Unit 731 photo.

2) Rsjaffe responded already so I will let them deal with your response, but admin is clearly not convinced by your arguments especially in light of how much content you deleted just to make Japan look good. As multiple editors pointed out, your editing strongly suggests you have a pro-Japan bias, specifically the revisionist type.

3) I see Rsjaffe and others are already talking about the Santa Clara stuff/sourcing so I don't want to make it redundant, but they clearly agree with my position that you are just abusing primary sources by uncritically accepting Japanese narratives while dismissing secondary sources from American institutes. Also, where have I IP-blocked you? Can you please tell me where in the talk page or here on the Admin noticeboard where I IP-blocked you (or asked admin to block you)? You are making claims that don't make any sense at all.

Also, you are now making personal attacks towards me which violates Wikipedia policy, here you have twice now personally attacked, you have said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" even though I am not pro-China/pro-PRC and now you say I am an "opponent." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

First of all, can we please stop discussing this on this forum? I think we're causing a lot of trouble for those around us.

What kind of proof are you asking for regarding Bryan Riggs? His book isn't a peer-reviewed academic paper or anything like that, so there's no academic literature to prove that its contents aren't reliable. Similarly, there are no papers to prove that its contents are reliable. There are criticisms and reviews of the book, but those are topics for discussion in the Bryan Riggs article.

I'm not blaming you for the IP block. I was simply stating the fact that I've been blocked on Wikimedia Commons and raising concerns about how I'm being treated. I apologize if calling you a "victim of Chinese propaganda" offended you. However, your statement that my edits are "historical revisionist" also feels like an insult to me. Revisionists don't even engage in discussion; they act on the premise that the other party is unilaterally wrong. I always seek discussion and want to acknowledge and correct my own mistakes. I believe that unilaterally deciding on the other person's "principles" and proceeding with the discussion based on that premise is completely unconstructive. Also, I'm not a native English speaker, so I don't know the exact meaning of "opponent" in English-speaking countries, but I'm using it in the sense of a debate partner.

To reiterate, you were the one who first raised the issue of my editing on the admin forum. However, the discussion has devolved into a mere exchange of arguments about individual articles, causing considerable inconvenience. You claim to want to "exclude" me from discussions about Japanese history, but if that's your purpose for making this discussion public, then I don't want to cause any more trouble for everyone, so I'd like to quietly return to editing my articles. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the appropriate forum as admin can track our conversation, and if the Topic Ban passes you won't be allowed to edit Japan-topic articles anyhow.

You say his stuff isn't peer reviewed, or that his stuff isn't reliable. That would easily meant certain historians or journalists would have had to have written about him, particularly negatively on this topic. We have numerous cases of this, like how I said that Kobori Keiichiro is a far-right revisionist. Here's an example:

Example: I stand by the claim that your edits are POV pushing, especially since other editors have already pointed that out to. Here's a perfect comparsion, you have cited far-right historians like Kobori Keiichiro, which multiple sources say he's a revisionist or affiliated with revisionists or he says revisionist things. Georgetown University flat out says the society he's with is "pseudo-scholary." I made a point, I defended it with sources and quotes from reputable sources like his own words, DW (German news outlet secondary source), Georgetown University (secondary source, American academic institution). Nowhere did I just say things or tell editors to look at wikipedia pages, I give concise, targeted links so that you can easily click them and you know where I got this information from. Its indisputable that what you cite is from the far-right.

Contrast that with your claim, you said I am a "victim of Chinese propaganda" when I have shown time and again that I am not a fan of the Chinese government and don't hold great views of it. I outright asked other editors if a source like the Chinese media article should even be included as I said I was uncomfortable using a Chinese government source. I would have been open to discussing removing it, but you refused to respect me throughout this entire process. You offered compromises without letting me even accept or reject them.

I find it hard to believe the "opponent" mistranslation when let me quote EXACTLY the words you said to describe me: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Translation issues can happen yes, but anyone can see that you had to have deliberately written that in Japanese to convey such spiteful comments.

As for the exclusion, I was not the one who even proposed it. I am merely agreeing to the proposal after multiple other editors decided your behavior towards me and others was so disrespectful (and because you showed significant POV pushing and bias in your edits). that they collectively started to agree upon it hours before I even edited today. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Brian Riggs, Professor Shiro Takahashi of Reitaku University and education scholar Shiro Takahashi have criticized the content, and journalist Toshihiro Yamada interviewed him and raised questions about the content. (I apologize that it is a paid article. Brian Riggs denies receiving funding from the Chinese government, but he admitted that he received assistance from a Chinese woman in organizing historical materials, and that her friend was the chief record keeper handling public documents in Nanjing. The article suggests that the writing style is intended to create buzz and increase sales.)

For recent Japanese perceptions of the Tokyo Trials, please read this article by Asahi Shimbun reporter Makino, for example. It's short. Incidentally, for recent actions by the Chinese government, you might find the Asahi Shimbun article by Dr. Dylan Plung of the University of Washington, who is also mentioned in that article above, the Jiji Press article, and the paper from the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Japanese Ministry of Defense helpful. You will understand why Japanese people are nervous about information from Chinese media such as Xinhua News Agency, including the photograph in question.

I offered a compromise precisely because I respected your opinion. However, as a result, my editing has been completely ignored. Is this the result of you showing me respect? The language barrier is truly frustrating. You unilaterally declared me a revisionist, shut down the discussion, and reported me as a user making disruptive edits on the administrator bulletin board.

I believe I have carefully responded to the many points raised by people here, but the discussion proceeded with a predetermined conclusion from the start, and I've even been subjected to a TBAN. Some people on Wikimedia have shown understanding for my explanation, but they are powerless against the authority of the administrators. In any case, I will continue to deepen my knowledge, correct what needs correcting, admit my mistakes, and strive for agreement and respect for historical understanding not only on Wikipedia but on various stages as well.

I'm getting tired, so that's all from me. Good night. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I call your edits showing revisionist intent precisely because you keep citing revisionists.

You cited Professor Shiro Takahasi about Bryan Riggs, well I looked him up. The Japan Forward (the English wing of the Sankei Shimbum a right wing-far right newspaper) notes his presence/writes about him multiple times and shows he is affiliated with far-right groups. That same person you cite, is highly reviewed by the far right "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact" that I talked about. While I am not supportive of Bryan Riggs work, it is clear there is a collective, coordinated effort by far-right Japanese scholars to try to discredit him as the articles clearly indicate.

These other sources are all mostly just talking about Chinese efforts to discredit Japanese sovereignty and identity, which I personally (though I try to not let that affect my editing as editing should be objective and neutral) am against as I do believe that Chinese state actions towards Japan are malicious and that Japanese people have a right to self-determination as do all people. However, it is equally malicious to just support Japanese nationalism and war crime denials.

No, Rosemeyer you offered a compromise and didn't even let me comment on it before making it. That played a huge role in why I filed this ANI (which I must remind you, is the correct protocol for dealing with this as our conversations were going nowhere). And please stop accusing me of "not showing you respect' when you said: "Therefore, to avoid increasing the number of victims of Chinese propaganda like yourself, I do not want to cite Chinese media...It is truly pitiable to watch you remain completely unaware that you are a victim of Chinese propaganda." Given that I have not called u anything negative (for example I could be saying "Rosemeyer is a victim of Japanese nationalist ideology" but I have not)

Not to mention, other users like AndyTheGrump already said your edits show far-right/revisionist bias. There was no "predetermined conclusion" because you could shown me and other editors respect. Seeing as how you called admins on Wiki commons "vandals" its pretty clear why the proposal to TBAN you off Japanese history on English Wikipedia is getting traction. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The diffs on the racial equality proposal and the edit warring over the image are particularly alarming even notwithstanding the claims that academic sources are somehow Chinese propaganda. Unfortunately it's all too common for people to claim, on Wikipedia, that even a tangential connection to China is enough to question reliability. I think we need to start treating these POV assertions seriously, especially when they become obviously disruptive such as in the case above. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In reality, the confusion is arising precisely because no academic sources have been presented at all. If the act of presenting more reliable sources continues to be labeled as "disruptive behavior" moving forward, the number of people who question the reliability of Chinese media will only increase. Please seriously consider the fact that the very act of refusing discussion and labeling the opponent's proposals as "POV" solely to push one's own narrative is, in itself, a POV assertion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I have literally never edited the same articles as you and you're calling me an opponent? I am literally an uninvolved third party. A locus of the disruption here is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rosemeyer2022 is a very new editor though so I think a time-limited topic ban narrowly tailored on 20th century Japanese history is probably a reasonable remedy. That way they can learn a bit about appropriate comportment in other areas with minimal interference with their options to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not call you an opponent. I was simply explaining the situation I currently find myself in. However, even as a third party, if you show no respect for freedom of speech and propose further blocks under the guise that my demeanor is "inappropriate," then you are the one turning Wikipedia into a battleground. I ask that you respond to rational questions with rationality. Sincerely. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I proposed no blocks. About the only action that could arise out of this board milder than a narrowly-targeted and time-limited topic ban would be a formal warning. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. It's probably a problem with my English reading comprehension. I misread your suggestion as "reasonable remedy," so I mistakenly thought it was a remedy for me. I couldn't think of any reason why I needed a remedy. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a remedy that would be assigned to you. Actions taken at this board are non-punitive and are designed to prevent further disruption. The evidence provided by @Rsjaffe is quite clear that disruption has occurred. My remedy is designed to curtail that with minimal impact. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't received any explanation of the evidence from @Rsjaffe, and it was someone else who claimed I was causing confusion. I have absolutely no intention of causing confusion, and if my edits are clearly wrong, I will correct them immediately. That's what the Talk function is for. In any case, I don't believe I will be blocked without being allowed to discuss anything at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Which LLM-based software (translation tool, grammar checker, etc.) are you using to communicate here? --JBL (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You asked what my true intentions were in posting my concerns. I believe my posting expressed those, but to be clear, I'll explain more here. My posting was an invitation to others to examine the evidence and provide me and other administrators with better background on the nature and quality of the edits. Administrators try to avoid deciding content disputes. However, this is a concern about pushing fringe or biased information, in which case the content dispute is important for making the decision. I avoided making conclusions as I did not have access to enough sources to confirm my concerns: thus I simply objectively recounted your edits. However, I did make one conclusion: that the picture of the "plague victim" was indeed a unit 731 victim, as I could readily find multiple reliable sources about that image. Indeed, you misread the source you quote as that source clearly labels the image as a unit 731 victim, and just includes the Japanese justification of the image, which you improperly assumed was the correct description: the quotes around "plague victim" indeed emphasize that the Japanese description wsa deceptive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, I wanted to follow up here with you. Thank you for verifying the image is true, that it unfortunately is a real human being and that the image is not doctored.

I am tagging @AndyTheGrump specifically for this next section because I wanted to tell you that you were correct in saying that Rosemeyer has a Japanese revisionist view of history and that Rsjaffe's concerns on their edits is spot on.

Following up on your comment on Rosemeyer's edits on "Ben Bruce Blakeney." I dug into this to see who Rosemeyer cited. The source they used has a far-right/revisionist bias, they cited here Kobori Keiichiro, who is an author/member for the "Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact."

DW, a German news outlet, and other outlets, call this Society a far-right/Japanese revisionist org saying it "promotes a narrative of Japan's actions during World War II that denies the atrocities that Japan committed."

You can also see here in this interview transcript that Rosemeyer's source/author Kobori Keiichiro straight up says the British/Americans conspired to wage war against Japan. Rosemeyer's author says the Huanggutun incident (for those unfamiliar, this was an attempt by the Japanese Empire to destabilize China) was actually a "secret Soviet operation" and you can check out all the other revisionist publications this society works on in their English website.]] Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the interpreter stopped midway through Blakeney's statement at the Tokyo Trials is corroborated by the "Transcripts of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East," published 1946-1948 by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and held by the National Diet Library of Japan. Although the record is in Japanese, I believe it can be read using AI. There are also videos of Blakeney's statements on YouTube, so please compare them to this for verification. Dr. Keiichiro Kobori is an emeritus professor at the University of Tokyo and, naturally, has published books based on thorough historical criticism and verification. If we do not consider this a reliable source, there will be almost no sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. I also agree with TBAN, so please continue the discussion in the Talk section of the relevant article. I do not want to cause trouble on the Admin Bulletin Board. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are going into the territory of original research in Wikipedia which is frowned upon. Regardless of what happened with the interpreter, we cannot trust the source you are providing (Keiichiro Kobori) precisely because we have proof that their usage of facts are biased.

Also that completely ignores the point Im making, the basis of the source (Keiichiro Kobori) is far-right. We have proof of this, a German news outlet describes the society he works for as far-right. His own writings are entirely revisionist, "Dr" Keiichiro Kobori is claiming the British and Americans provoked Japan into WWII, they claim the Soviets did something the Japanese clearly did, I can go on and on about the sheer revisionism.

Also I believe you might be misinterpreting what a TBAN is, essentially the proposal would mean you are barred from editing or discussing on all and any Japanese history on this website and on all relevant articles (the duration of which is yet to be determined). This noticeboard on your specific case will close out. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me reiterate, can we stop arguing here? Let's discuss this on lawyer Blakeney's page.

I haven't conducted any independent research; I've simply presented alternative sources. I leave it up to you to interpret them as you see fit.

You are free to call Dr. Kobori a revisionist. However, it is also true that many experts acknowledge his research and support his claims. Ignoring that fact and lumping them all together as revisionists is a typical POV (point of view) statement.

Is TBAN a measure to block all editing related to Japanese history on the English Wikipedia? If that is implemented, it will cause a major stir among Wikipedia Japan editors, including Japanese administrators. I think it will no longer be a discussion between us here. Please make your decision carefully. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The proposed TBAN concerns you only. I see no reason whatsoever why administrators of the Japanese Wikipedia would wish to engage in an entirely inappropriate attempt to interfere. The projects are autonomous. Neither has any control over the other, per core WMF policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that, of course. However, please also understand that many Japanese Wiki editors are working hard to reconcile articles across different countries. Wikipedia is not a platform for asserting differences in national perceptions. Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does not provide a platform for all forms of human expression. I respect those words. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe, thank you for your comment. I certainly respect your objective review of my editing, and I will try my best to understand the conclusions you have reached. You mentioned that you were able to easily find multiple reliable sources for the photograph in question, but if all of those sources ultimately trace back to articles published by the Jilin Provincial Archives and Xinhua News Agency, then they cannot be considered academically verified and clearly proven sources from a multifaceted perspective, including from Japan. Furthermore, I am not stating Japan's claims. I am simply faithfully translating the title and caption of the photograph as they appear on the cover of the album, which is the source. Anyone who can read Japanese cannot make a mistake in this description. Xinhua News Agency is claiming that Japan's explanation is deceptive, but I could not find any sources in which Japanese public organizations or researchers are explaining "this photograph." Therefore, I don't even know what the Chinese media is claiming is deceptive. I repeat, but could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them? Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is quite a presumption: "could you please logically explain the justification for adopting claims made by Chinese media that have not been adequately verified or researched, and for using sources that merely reprint them, as reliable sources and drawing conclusions based on them?

Why are you presuming they're Chinese media/based on Chinese media, when rsjaffe hasn't told you which sources he was looking at? You said that you've looked at Japanese sources, but that doesn't mean that every other source in existence is Chinese by default. You also don't know if they are primary or secondary sources.

Similarly, Japanese sources aren't necessarily any more reliable than those of other countries - if the concern is that Japan might not be a reliable source for something, then it's probably not a good idea to focus solely on Japanese sources - sources from independent/uninvolved countries may be preferable in that case.

All we know is that rsjaffe found other reliable sources, you can't make presumptions about their reliability without knowing what they are first. Blue-Sonnet 00:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Then, I would like to ask @rsjaffe to provide the source of the information, but this is not something that should be continued on this forum, so I would like to discuss it in the relevant Wikimedia Commons photo article. However, I am currently IP and editing blocked on Commons, and I do not even have the right to ask questions. My request to be unblocked was also denied, so there is nothing I can do. Please guide me to where I should continue the discussion. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You are blocked from Commons because you tried to change the photo of the Unit 731 victim to be about epidemic prevention.Your conversation about that photo on Commons has run its course, and your excessive pushing on that issue resulted in the block there. There is really no more that needs to be discussed about it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. When I edited the caption for this photo, the Talk was not closed, and the post requesting the source of the photo was still there, so I provided the newly discovered source and asked for the file name to be changed. I don't see the basis for the claim that the discussion is settled. In any case, I am blocked, so there is nothing I can do, and I will refrain from replying any further. Thank you for your advice. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As stated in that link, Wikipedia is dedicated to expanding access to the sum of human knowledge, and this is achieved through discussions from multiple perspectives. Therefore, the term POV should not be used lightly. We should all be careful not to reject opinions different from our own and to silence others. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a platform for expressing our own opinions. As for 'multiple perspectives', it seems evident from the links provided by rsjaffe near the top of this thread that your actual editing practice has been to attempt to impose one (that of Japanese revisionist historiography), while removing sourced content which might support other perspectives on questionable grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules, which require citing sources to support the basis of such citations, center the editing process on compiling and publishing reliable verifications and research from others, rather than expressing one's own opinions. I have always strived to edit with reliable sources, rather than expressing my own principles or opinions, and sources serve as proof of this. However, if even this rule-following behavior is considered imposing one's will, then no one will be able to edit Wikipedia. If the sources I cited are incorrect, I would appreciate it if you could provide more reliable sources. Even if anyone speculate on my editing "tendencies," all I can say is that I corrected the error because it was stated that way in reliable sources. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edits to the articles on Japanese carpentry and on Manila Cathedral suggest otherwise, since they involved removal of what appears to be legitimately-sourced content. This isn't about correcting a single 'error'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is correcting incorrect information about Japanese carpentry techniques a problem? Regarding carpentry techniques, what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog, and its history was off by several centuries, so I simply corrected it based on a source from the Japan Tourism Agency. I didn't remove descriptions about Chinese influence, so I don't see the problem. I also corrected the description of Manila Cathedral, using Aluit, Alphonso J. (1994). By sword and fire: The Destruction of Manila in World War II. as the source, but even though I'm quoting the same book, the description of US naval bombardment in that book has been removed, and descriptions of Japanese war crimes have been added. Doesn't this constitute editing based on POV? I don't understand the criteria at all. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

In this edit (linked above) you removed content concerning Chinese influence on Japanese carpentry, which cited two sources. The first source isn't a blog, and it quotes a Japanese carpenter who explicitly supports the Chinese influence claim: At the end of the 12th century, fine woodworking skills and knowledge were brought into Japan from China. Even if the second source is a blog (it is offline), the first one supports the material you removed. As for the source you cited in the same edit, it isn't from the Japan Tourist Agency , and says absolutely nothing about Chinese influence. As such, it cannot possibly be used to justify the removal of the content.

As for Manila Cathedral, I think it has been well established that initially the Japanese set the building on fire. Certainly, it was further damaged during the subsequent US shelling, but your initial edit failed to mention Japanese actions at all. . Your later edit seems to have been a half-hearted attempt to correct this, but it is anything but clear. It shouldn't take a revert, and a request for a source, to get even this response.

In summary, I'd have to suggest that "editing based on POV" looks like a fair description of your own actions. In both cases, in support of a POV very much adjacent to a Japanese revisionist/nationalist perspective, even though on very different topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we think a TBAN from Japan and/or Japanese history would be a good solution? I was about to propose this and wanted your thoughts. Blue-Sonnet 16:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a TBAN as broad as "Japan". My original sense was 20th century Japanese history but, considering the carpentry edits perhaps "Japanese History" would be an appropriate ban without being too broad or too narrow. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Japanese history does seem fair in this case, agreed. Blue-Sonnet 20:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, Rosemeyer's claims here are not true at all. There were very legitimate sources (beyond what AndyTheGrump pointed out). Rosemeyer said "what you consider legitimately-sourced content is a personal blog" but thats outright false.

Here, they deleted this source published by Web.Japan.Org, which is operated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.

The Japanese MoFA says in the opening sentence on Japanese architecture: Historically, architecture in Japan was influenced by Chinese architecture, although the differences between the two are many. This is a very balanced and correct answer, and is well-sourced (I know its a government source, but I highly doubt the Japanese MOFA has an incentive to push a pro-Chinese bias). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, as basic general knowledge, do you know when the World Heritage site Horyu-ji Temple was founded? Or, when was Ise Shrine, a representative example of Japanese shrine architecture, founded, and do you understand its architectural style and how it differs from Chinese architecture? The first source you mentioned is an interview with a young Japanese carpenter, but 12th-century Japan was the late Heian period. It seems this carpenter is referring to the popularity of Song dynasty architecture in Japan, but even before that, Japan had already developed a unique architectural style called "Wayō," which evolved from Chinese architecture. Furthermore, Japanese architecture continued its unique evolution after the 12th century, and its structure and specifications differ significantly from Chinese architecture. Japan adopted the superior techniques and styles of Chinese architecture around the 7th century, but due to differences in climate and other environmental factors such as earthquakes, it evolved uniquely, such as Japanese-castle and Chashitsu , leading to its modern form. On the other hand, ancient Japanese architecture, predating Chinese influence, has also been passed down to the present day through shrine architecture and other forms. It's unlikely this young carpenter lacks such basic knowledge, so it's probably a misunderstanding on the part of the interviewer.

Regarding the Manila Cathedral article, I intended to maintain fairness by including both Japanese arson and US artillery fire based on reliable sources, but I don't understand why only the US portion was deleted. Arson alone wouldn't cause such a massive stone structure to collapse. However, how is it justified to unilaterally delete only the US portion without any discussion? Furthermore, what is the necessity of adding descriptions of Japanese war crimes to the Manila Cathedral article?

In both articles, I have tried to respect the content while editing based on more reliable sources to avoid making one-sided claims. Of course, I correct clearly incorrect sources, like in the young carpenter article, and I am open to discussion if an explanation is needed as to why they are incorrect. Again, please do not misuse the term "POV." If you believe someone else's editing is POV, ask for an explanation and engage in discussion. That's the rule of Wikipedia. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Chinese influence from the article on Japanese carpentry. It is a simple demonstrable fact that this edit of yours removed all mention of Japanese arson from the article on Manila Cathedral. Your continue denial of obvious facts can only lead me to conclude that a topic ban is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Shall we discuss this topic in the article in question?

I admit that I once removed the description of Chinese influence during the editing process, but I have since edited the article to include Chinese influence based on reliable sources, haven't I? The same applies to the description of Manila Cathedral. I always strive to edit based on sources. If there are errors in the current article, please point them out, provide the sources, and then edit it. Also, don't you have any opinions on the details of Japanese architectural history that I explained to you at length and in detail? I can't respond if you only criticize my past editing history. Please give your opinion on the current content of the article in the Talk section of that article. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Considering the concerns raised by multiple editors above regarding the removal and misinterpretation of existing sources, consistent editing with a specific POV as well as the apparent misunderstanding of NPOV, plus the labelling of any dissenters as "opponents", I think it's time to discuss a topic ban on Japanese history (broadly construed). I want Rosemeyer2022 to continue editing at Wikipedia, but they need to avoid this topic as they're having difficulty remaining neutral when it comes to this area - the logical conclusion is a TBAN on the problematic area.

• Support as proposer. Blue-Sonnet 00:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I also understand that the current situation—where both sides of the argument are suffering from concerns such as the deletion or misinterpretation of existing sources, biased editing based on specific viewpoints, a clear misunderstanding of Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and labeling those with opposing views as "opponents"—is not constructive. These matters should inherently be discussed within each respective article. If actions such as reverting edits without discussion and reporting users to administrators are avoided, and if unilateral IP blocks or editing restrictions are not imposed without sufficient explanation under the guise of POV or vandalism, I am willing to agree to the TBAN. Rosemeyer2022 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This topic ban would be placed on you with the clear agreement of the community (multiple editors) and not one single person or administrator. This is intended to make things as fair as possible for you.

A topic ban would mean that you aren't allowed to write or talk about Japanese history at all on Wikipedia.

• If you don't write or talk about Japanese history, there will be nothing to revert.
• If you break the topic ban, your edits will probably be reverted because they shouldn't exist in the first place.
• If you are topic banned and try to write about Japanese history whilst logged out (under a temporary account instead of this one) then there will probably be further sanctions. This would be violating your topic ban and you could have your IP and/or this account blocked if it continued.

Blue-Sonnet 01:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support for Blue Sonnet's proposal to topic ban Rosemeyer off Japanese history. Follow up Edit: Support for Indef per Rsjaffe's comment and reasoning. (@Blue-Sonnet can you please clarify this, since Rosemeyer might be misunderstanding, even in their most recent reply, they're doing a "both sides" argument even though every single editor who has commented here has agreed Rosemeyer has shown significant bias and support towards far-right/revisionist interpretation of Japanese history. Its possible via their translation that they think "both sides are being topic banned" when its just them)

Though frankly I believe something harsher might be needed. They've called me a "victim of Chinese propaganda" and an "opponent" and these are personal attacks (especially the first one, which I find very condscending and insulting because they claim in their edits they wanted to "stop people from becoming victims of Chinese propaganda like you" to me). Really, its very frustrating to see them behave like this and mistreat other editors. Also I checked out what they meant by the "IP ban" I found they've been banned off commons just recently due to vandalism/they were pushing the exact same edits there as here. We might need a stronger and longer response. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Duly clarified - if they did break the topic ban then further sanctions would be warranted. I hope that they will at least try to edit other subjects, at least this way they will have been given the fairest chance that we can give them.

That said, this is concerning so IMO any violations should be given short shrift.

This TBAN is being proposed as a very short leash, so it's up to them whether they want to take this last chance that they've been offered or squander it.

I'm really hoping that it's the former, and they can edit productively in more neutral areas. Blue-Sonnet 01:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea...pretty aggressive stuff. Calling administrators "vandals" is very rude and uncalled for, especially given just how much the admins have to deal with (stuff like this for example).

Thank you for the further clarification you provided, hopefully they understand the TBAN is specifically for only them. Disagreeing or bludgeoning the point is one thing but the personal attacks they've made are really getting out of hand. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is Rosemeyer2022 continuing to deny obvious facts concerning deletion of sourced material, they are now hinting at attempting to draw support from 'Japanese administrators'. I very much doubt that such admins would even consider interfering in an internal English-language Wikipedia issue, but this suggestion can only be seen as further grounds to keep Rosemeyer2022 away from a topic where their emotional involvement leads them to contemplate such improper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, it looks like that's yet another misunderstanding of what a topic ban actually is - it looks like they thought everyone Japanese (or just everyone) would be banned from editing about Japanese history?

  I'm starting to get a strong suspicion that machine translation is being used, because there are far too many basic misunderstandings for someone using the level of English that we're seeing in their replies. Blue-Sonnet 16:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just wanted to follow up on this Blue Sonnet/AndyTheGrump, yea you might be onto something its probably some kind of AI or machine translation being used. I still don't think Rosemeyer understands what a topic ban is, here's a brief collection of their statements indicating they don't know the TBAN applies only to them and it doesn't apply to every other editor. NOTE: Blue Sonnet clarified what the TBAN was on 01:27 23 May 2026, here are the examples after Blue Sonnet's comment (and other editors comments) that indicate Rosemeyer doesn't seem to understand:

  02:00, 23 May 2026: "First of all, can we please stop discussing this on this forum?... I'd like to quietly return to editing my articles." (Note: They were conversing with me. Every single edit Rosemeyer has made prior to the ANI has been on Japanese history topics)

  02:17 23 May 2026: "Let me reiterate, can we stop arguing here? Let's discuss this on lawyer Blakeney's page." (Blakeney is related to Japanese history) and then they asked how a TBAN applies. (Note: They were discussing this with me and admin Rsjaffe. Their edits suggest they think the TBAN is a topic ban for every editor).

  02:28, 23 May 2026: "Shall we discuss this topic in the article in question?" (Note: They were conversing with AndyTheGrump. Japanese Carpentry is the article in question, which is related to Japanese history)

  03:12, 23 May 2026: "I understand that, of course. However, please also understand that many Japanese Wiki editors are working hard to reconcile articles across different countries." (Note: They were discussing with AndyTheGrump. The first sentence suggests they understand but its contradicted by the immediate second sentence which indicates they think its a general topic ban for everyone because they say "many Japanese wiki editors are working hard...")

  04:53, 23 May 2026: "I believe I have carefully responded to the many points raised by people here, but the discussion proceeded with a predetermined conclusion from the start, and I've even been subjected to a TBAN." (Note: They were discussing with me. They seem to think the TBAN has already happened, when the vote hasn't even formally concluded yet.)

  Can anyone write in Kanji or know Japanese? I'm worried Rosemeyer will break the TBAN because they don't seem to understand what it actually is and they don't understand its specifically applied only to them. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly speaking, if they choose to edit English Wikipedia then it's their responsibility to make sure they understand the language well enough to do so.

  If they're TBANned and subsequently violate the ban, an admin will likely fully block them.

  It might be an idea to translate the TBAN notice, but there will be wikilinks to policies/guidelines that explain things further - OFC those will be in English, so it's again their responsibility to make sure they understand them fully before continuing to edit English Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet 23:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support with 6 month time limit This editor is new and came in hot but NPOV is sometimes challenging even for well established editors who are operating entirely in good faith. The stuff at Commons isn't a good look but also isn't on En.Wp. Let's prevent disruption while avoiding WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum. An indef would be acceptable as well. I already consider myself involved since I engaged in a disagreement with Rosemeyer2022 about content (the picture), so I might as well participate in the sanctions discussion. I suggest people review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which describes (to a large extent but not completely) the behavior exhibited here. The problem is that the user is pushing a fringe/extremist POV. For example, retitling the picture not only goes against the current assessment attached to the picture, but also endorses the fiction that was pushed about their activities that they were public health efforts, against the evidence that is available widely about the true activities there. If this person were editing about the Nazi atrocities in WWII, I'd expect to see large numbers of people rapidly shutting them down. But because it is about the Japanese atrocities, knowledge of which was partially suppressed at the time by the US in order to take advantage of the "science" contained in the experiments, there is a much more muted response. The other edits also push a strongly nationalist POV. Because of that, I believe that experience will not improve the situation, and giving the editor more time to learn would be fruitless. A topic ban would stop those edits. Why am I suggesting an indefinite block? Because this is a low volume editor with a singular agenda: I do not think that the potential benefit of edits by them in other areas outweighs the time and effort needed to enforce a half-measure like a topic ban. However, it is a decision that is up to the community. I am unable, as an involved editor, to make such a decision myself, though another admin could do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of their problems at Commons when I proposed the TBAN, plus the ongoing language & communication difficulties are honestly beginning to concern me.

  I'm currently 50/50 between TBAN & indef, but since we've got the TBAN ball rolling right now I guess we'll see how it goes.

  If consensus moves to indef then I'll probably amend my support. Blue-Sonnet 00:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Personally I've come around to Rsjaffe's idea, I do think an Indef might be the correct solution. I'll amend my vote. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate Articles by User:BlueBob44

User:BlueBob44 has been making articles with inappropriate or non-encyclopedic titles: Constructed titty and Constructions of the booby. Both articles have been nominated by myself for deletion under Wikipedia:CSD G3. He has also made two redirects Hypersexually and Hypersexualisms, which do not appear to serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. I would ask that an administrator review this user's contributions and take any appropriate action. CostalCal (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest R3 on all except Hypersexually, which is a legitimate {{r from adverb}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hypersexually and Hypersexualisms are both G4 for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_10#Girl-crazily. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The other two were previously created by Neelix and mass-deleted in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I have notified BlueBob44 of this thread and deleted one of the redirects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

oxydane BlueBob44 (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the horse nutritional formulation Oxydane to this discussion? Narky Blert (talk)

Somewhere on the young person/CIR/trolling spectrum. They created Oxydane as a redirect, perhaps confusing it with Oxidane. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated Oxydane at WP:RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Alternate spelling of Oxidane BlueBob44 (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Can someone revert this unconstructive edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water&diff=prev&oldid=1354958916 ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Recreating four redirects deleted a decade ago, especially two by Neelix, looks like trolling. The non sequitor reply here confirms it. I suggest indef as NOTHERE. Fences&Windows 14:40, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This was done by Spartaz. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, BlueBob44 claims to have been hacked and that he's regained control of the account. Seems unlikely to me. Hellbus (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also pretty much guarantees they're not going to get unblocked as a compromised account. Blue-Sonnet 07:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've asked if they want to retract that claim before it's too late, since none of it makes any sense. I suspect they've panicked at being blocked, and are trying to get out of it with a very poorly thought-out tactic. Blue-Sonnet 08:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Poseidon sas is gaming extended-confirmed

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

---

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

The large number of user subpages that this editor is creating have been nominated for deletion at MFD. What the user is doing is trying to game permission to be extended-confirmed. They have made a request for that , which was properly denied by voorts. I don't know what contentious topic they are trying to edit, but it doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think its a CTOP in this case, but adminship, per this post on their talk page. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This user has now created User:Poseidon sas/All Steam achievements for each games/ and has responded with whatever this means. In my opinion, they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I think at least a userspace block is needed, if not just an indef. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:28, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

When are people going to realise you can't game adminship in that manner? As much shit as we give the usual RfA and voter crowd for being inconsistent and mercurial, they're very quick to notice when a admin hopeful just flat-out isn't up to standards and gonging their candidacy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 08:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've indef pblocked them from userspace. Fences&Windows 14:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I've referred them to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Long term disprutive edits by User:RojasDawson

RojasDawson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up to a previous ANI discussion regarding User:RojasDawson. They have again re-added the same disputed content despite prior reverts, and warnings regarding the same behaviour. Media Mender (chat, stalk) 04:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They are persistently adding unsourced content to multiple Pokémon articles. Media Mender (chat, stalk) 10:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Malware

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

---

i have a user or users stringed to my IP address help ~2026-30377-05 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean, sorry? This is a noticeboard for editing Wikipedia, administrators can't really help with technical issues you're having with your computer - it's not clear what you're asking us for. Blue-Sonnet 06:49, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I believe it's just a case of not being aware of temporary accounts? Mr. Komori (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be my guess. OP, that string exists specifically to hide your IP and will persist as long as your cookies for Wikipedia/Wikimedia remain on your computer. If the cookies get deleted, you'll be assigned a new temporary account automatically. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 07:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's also worth noting, OP, that this is a relatively recent change (November) so if you havent edited Wikipedia since then before then, then yes, it's changed. Morwen (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Chronic miscategorization by user:Mattmeine2023

Yesterday, Mattmeine2023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) incorrectly added multiple articles to the categories of Christmas songs, Easter songs, and Halloween songs (such as "Wedding March", "The Star-Spangled Banner", and "Ave Maria"). I saw on their talk page that they'd been repeatedly warned about this behavior since they began editing in 2023. (They've also been warned repeatedly about other types of unconstructive editing.) Quite a few of their edits have been reverted, and I've found a number of their older edits that weren't reverted but should have been.

Mattmeine2023 has never responded to any warning and never used a talk page. They take a break from certain behaviors after being warned, long enough that warning editors don't seem to notice that they have been warned before. Since they have never communicated and since they persist in disruptive editing, I suggest an indef block from article-space until they (1) communicate with the community and (2) indicate a better understanding of categories. Schazjmd (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Mattmeine2023 has yet to respond here, but that is typical of their editing pattern; they edit for a day and then usually don't return to editing for a week or two. I'd appreciate it if an admin could apply an article-space block now so that when they return, they will be compelled to address the issues with their editing. (C'mon, they categorized Thelma & Louise as a "french-language western"!) Schazjmd (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I've done an indef pblock for article space. Fences&Windows 23:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Hopefully they'll be open to discussion when they return to editing. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Censorship of Nazi references

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

---

The TA ~2026-29697-78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and its associated IP addresses have made edits censoring any Nazi references (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13). They have been warned six times (1 2 3 4 5 6). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify they are censoring references to Nazis, not references by Nazis. And doing so on the basis of their personal interpretation of German law. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't imagine censoring references by Nazis is much less objectionable. Ravenswing 15:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Tjcw01 is WP:NOTHERE, implies they may conduct meatpuppetry in the future

User:Tjcw01 has taken multiple actions attempting to skirt Wikipedia policies, including moving a draft that they believed AfC would not accept to main space, suggesting they would have a family member or friend make edits on their behalf.

Diffs:

Edit summary suggesting an article would be rejected as promotional (first noticed by @Spiderone here)

Denying it's promotional because nobody is making money, suggesting a colleague or family member would help, offering to mail USB sticks to people's houses

Attempted rewrite via "Bob," implied to be an LLM

Actively promoting the screensaver in the deletion discussion thread

If they were just misunderstanding policies, I would be hesitant to post this, but taking actions to avoid the rules, promoting a product in a deletion discussion, and suggesting they will ask others to post for them raises bigger concerns. SenshiSun (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any sanctions are necessary at this time. My interpretation is that this is a very new editor, unaware of the promotional nature of what they're trying to add or rules around WP:MEATPUPPET. I'd be open to things here if they continue to promote their project or get others to do so now that they've told not to multiple times. Eyesinthefire (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, this guy is completely failing to get the point about anything he is told, continually insists his "article" should be published in mainspace despite everyone else telling and explaining to him otherwise, and is offering to mail multiple people usb sticks (???) which is quite obviously not what Wikipedia is for.

He claims to be an IBM researcher but is completely failing to understand or comprehend anything he is told about Wikipedia or its policies. This should be a WP:NOTHERE block. Electricmemory (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Plus the LLM usage. What in the world is "Bob" ???? Electricmemory (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, to prevent the page from deletion, this user set up Special:Contributions/~2026-30027-50 to prevent the article from being deleted. This was done on "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linux Screenaver for Microsoft Windows" from Special:diff/1355072699 through Special:diff/1355074021. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 19:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

(Not an admin) He clearly stated that was him on his phone in this diff, the first one on the account. SenshiSun (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

BOB is an IBM product, an AI system used in software development. Neiltonks (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright so he’s stating he has/is going to use an experimental AI from his employer to edit Wiki. This alone should net an indef. Electricmemory (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Guys...no one has actually tried explaining to this guy what's going on. Everyone has been combative with him. He's just one of the 7.9 billion other people that don't understand Wikipedia. He's not a bad guy. English is probably not his native language either and he's confused about all of our policies. I'll leave him a message on his talk page.--v/r - TP 22:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@SenshiSun did you try speaking to the user beforehand? From what I see you just sent them straight to ANI which is really WP:BITEy. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I hadn't, but some other users had. (See below.) Another user in the deletion discussion also suggested they were "not here". SenshiSun (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

One user did in which the user here actually saw. Just remember newcomers are, well, new to this. A person saying the user is not here in a deletion discussion may not be seen by a newcomer, and may not even make sense to a newcomer. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diff of Eyesinthefire explaining issues, Kylie Tastic on user talk page. SenshiSun (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They didn't respond to the Eyesinthefire comment which, given they have only 25 edits, could very well be that they just didn't see it. As for Kylie Tastic, yes they saw and responded to it, but that was one message. This seems like it should not have gone to ANI and should have been discussed more. – LuniZunie_(talk) 22:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

That's absolutely understandable. Do new users know there's a problem with something and do it anyway?

The "offering to mail USB sticks to people's houses" bit threw me off, as it was hard to understand why he was making that suggestion. (I think he wants people to write about it so he has sources...)

I'd be fine with this closing as No Action Needed. SenshiSun (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Kylie Tastic's message was only a few days ago and I'm not certain Tjcw01 understood the implications of it between the WP: links. My message was posted after this AN/I was started (and only 7 hours ago - they may not have even logged on yet). Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing he's done rises to the level of any sanctions, to me. This is an extremely new user, I'm in agreement with LuniZunie that the way many of us here are talking to him is bitey.

If he continues to push this article after being explained in no uncertain terms that it's not suitable for the encyclopedia, I'd think this is the right venue.

Also if everyone who used a LLM once or twice to blindly create text for Wikipedia was immediately indeffed... I don't know whether I'd be in favor, but it would definitely make this forum and AfD look a lot different. Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively Bob is also a MacOS LLM-based translation app. I think that's more likely honestly. M kuhner (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Questionboard spam by TAs

~2026-30400-23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-30293-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-22534-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-30338-39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-30064-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-29101-67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-29981-55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of a sudden there's a lot of questions of a similar character being posted in a spammy nature to WP:Teahouse and WP:Help desk by these TAs. I don't have TAIV so I can't check, but I would suspect at least some of these are the same user. Athanelar (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

None of the other accounts are mine. ~2026-22534-68 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like there are several different people here and I can confirm this TA is not the same as any other. Morwen (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Now, 29981-55, 29101-67, and 30064-68 are the same editor who goes on about The Rodfellows Movie and floods the WP:TEAHOUSE with confusing and/or suspicious questions. . I was under the impression that this editor had been blocked? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, Morwen's block was for 31 hours, not a longer period of time. They've started five Teahouse discussions today already. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah sorry - I think I was hoping they'd learn their lesson! I need to tag out now - can someone else look at this and do the necessary? Morwen (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I just mentioned your block to keep the "paper trail" straight; I imagine your hope was that a break would cool them off, and I'm not going to give someone grief for being kind. I was just mildly confused at first, because my dumb, aging brain recalled it being a longer block, and was surprised to see that editor posting again so quickly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Same user is now back again as ~2026-30350-55, whose entire edit history is defending 29101's Rodfellows edits. Athanelar (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup, pretending that they are not the same person once again even though the only way it could be more obvious would be a confession. The latest IP address they're on (same IP provider in the same place) ought to be blocked or the constant disruption of the Teahouse will continue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Now also ~2026-30469-30; 2 in the same day. There certainly needs to be an IP/rangeblock here; this user is still indefinitely blocked on their previous TAs. Athanelar (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The editor of the last three has now opened up four Teahouse discussions today already. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

TA-hopping vandalism

Please block ~2026-27028-22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their underlying IP. This one user has performed vandalism across 8 TAs, making only 1-2 edits per account, and then switching. The full list is below:

• ~2026-27028-22
• ~2026-26357-87
• ~2026-25563-28
• ~2026-13722-98
• ~2026-17072-96
• ~2026-17263-25
• ~2026-13681-41
• ~2026-11827-10

Somepinkdude (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. Blocked IP three months. Next time, you should report something that's this simple at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, as you're likely to get faster response there. That page is set up for fast response for obvious vandals, when a long explanation is unnecessary. This board is better when there's a complex issue requiring a long explanation, or an investigation is needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Constantinopa

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

---

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

Many edits like . Violating WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Getting reported to WP:ANI did not stop them, see . tgeorgescu (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Neat overview of those edits: (just ignore Abel). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I second this complaint. It's obvious disruption now: multiple editors are reverting the edits and talk page notices are ignored. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't see any alternative to a block here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

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

David Eppstein

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I review lots of good and featured articles that I think do not fulfil the good article criteria or featured article criteria anymore. These reviews involve leaving comments on talk pages so that editors watchlisting the article can discuss the concerns and perhaps make improvements without posting articles at WP:GAR and WP:FAR. Sometimes editors disagree with a concern (example here), think my concerns are too strict for the criteria (example here) or think that the required fixes do not warrant a listing in a review process (example here). I know some editors have negative impressions on reviews or specifically my reviews, but I think they are necessary to improve some of these status articles and bring them back to meeting their respective criteria. I don't mind having discussions and disagreements about the criteria and seeking clarification when necessary, and have had productive conversations with editors about how to improve articles.

David Eppstein was subject to an ANI thread that closed in May 2025, that included a lot of discussion about our interactions in review processes. Tamzin closed the thread stating "there is overwhelming consensus, among supporters and opposers alike, that David Eppstein has engaged in a pattern of personal attacks at GAR and FAR" and enacted a "12-month ban from commenting at or about WP:GAR and WP:FAR", which David Eppstein adhered to. When the ban expired, David Eppstein responded to my reviews and edits in various articles with personal attacks instead of discussing how to improve an article. Examples include:

• "I am surprised that as experienced an editor as you would do either of these two things. Please stop doing them." May 11, 2026, in reference to adding citation needed tags to summaries at the top of various sections and because I was WP:BOLD and removed a nowrap template I did not think was necessary.
• In an edit summary, "You placed citation needed tags on material at the start of a section that merely summarized the contents of its subsections, which detail the same claims with proper sourcing. These summaries of later sourced material do not need citations, just as summaries in the lead of an article do not need citations. How do you not already know this?" May 11, 2026.
• "Seriously, does your participation here extend to actually paying attention to edits to the article, or are you judging the continued status of an article purely by coming around to the talk page once every two weeks or so and looking only how people have responded there?" May 20, 2026

In reference to edits in Prime number and the talk page linked above, I posted on David Eppstein's talk page: "Please do not post personalised critiques on my edits or reviews in edit diffs or article talk pages. If you would like to discuss my specific skills in editing or reviewing articles, please post on my talk page or on the appropriate noticeboard (like WT:GA)." His response was "Please develop a more constructive attitude towards constructive criticism. If you do not like it when you make bad edits and are criticized for it, make fewer bad edits."

I do not believe these types of interactions will change unless there is community intervention. I hope editors will consider an interaction ban for David Eppstein from replying to any of my comments on article talk pages, GARs, or FARs. This would still allow him to edit articles that I have reviewed, but hopefully stop his personalised attacks against me. This proposed ban would also allow him to post concerns about my editing conduct on appropriate noticeboards without restriction. I would also adhere to this IBAN by not posting in any article talk threads that David Eppstein is involved in. Thank you to all editors who look into this, and I am happy to respond to any questions (which I am more likely to notice if pinged). Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

My first reaction is: Nothingburger.

But on further thought I do have something more to say. And that is: If Z1720 wishes to avoid interaction with me, then that can largely be achieved without any formal process, by Z1720 avoiding having anything to do with articles for which I am a major contributor, such as (recently) the talk pages of prime number and Znám's problem. I have no idea why we have a link here to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Austro-Italian ironclad arms race/1, something I had nothing to do with.

If Z1720 has in mind, instead, that they can merely make a drive-by comment on the talk page of an article to which I was a major contributor and, through an IBAN, prevent me from any further contributions to that article or its discussion, then that would be a perverse distortion of process.

Additionally, although my previous ban on contributing to GAR assessments (but not to GAR-involved articles and talk pages) and on discussing GAR process has expired, I do not believe any of my contributions since its expiry have touched on those things. So the recent expiry of the ban is merely coincidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• I see nothing actionable here. If I was a participant in a discussion where the complained of comments were being made, it would cause me to discount the opinion of the person making them somewhat, but as "personal attacks" go these are meh. BD2412 T 19:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• I also see nothing actionable here. (I participated at Talk:Prime number and Talk:Znám's problem, and I don't think bringing those discussions to ANI is particularly useful.) Maybe DE can work a little harder to come off less confrontational, and Z1720 can work a little harder at seeing if there is a legitimate point under the somewhat confrontational tone. At the risk of sounding like a handpuppet-wielding workplace counselor with an office full of inspirational cat posters, why don't we try to be constructive and to take criticism constructively? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

For your information, the second bullet does not appear to be a personal attack, but rather an explanation of mistakes you have made during the review. In my talk page, you already discussed your mistake on not knowing about the fact that the section's lede was already covered by sources in the section's body, and so do I for the apologize of my mistake to you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I would say that Z1720 seems to be extremely thin-skinned (like Donald Trump or Jimmy Wales) but that would probably be dismissed as another personal attack. just take David's advice, "If you do not like it when you make bad edits and are criticized for it, make fewer bad edits." I agree with the above that this a nothingburger with nothing actionable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• My proposal asked for a specific iban for talk pages, not article space: David Eppstein has done great work in his interested subject areas (mostly math, a little bit of physics as well). Other editors who disagreed with my suggested edits in mathematics spaces without commentary on my editing skills (examples here and here). DE's responses are different because they are accompanied by commentary, usually a personal attack on my skills as an editor. For instance, Dedhert.Jr said above that the second bullet point was an explanation of mistakes that I made, which is correct until the last sentence: "How do you not already know this"? That kind of sentence is unnecessary and questions my skills as an editor instead of discussing article improvements. The third bullet point is David Eppstein responding to a question I asked another editor: instead of getting an answer to a question (in which I could assume an answer but want to confirm), I instead get an attack on how I comment on talk pages. These examples showcase how David Eppstein's additional comments on my editing skills clog discussions with commentary on my skills and personal attacks instead of focusing on article improvements. It would be off-topic for me to respond to these types of comments, as these discussions are appropriate on my talk page or the appropriate noticeboard, not on article talk pages. I am happy to answer those types of questions in the appropriate place.
• I believe these types of comments are similar to those identified in the last ANI as driving editors away from articles DE is involved with. All articles, including mathematics articles, need editors who are subject specialists, those like me who have created high-quality articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, and newer editors/general readers who can give a perspective from the audience our articles are supposed to appeal to. Driving away editors from the mathematics topic area creates a smaller pool of editors to improve articles that DE cares about. I am not confident that DE will ever agree with a comment I make or a citation needed tag that I place in a mathematics article simply because my signature is attached to the comment. I might be thin-skinned, but I do not want other editors to be driven away from making math articles better.
• The best solution is if DE makes changes to how he interacts with editors: DE has already removed one comment, which I appreciate. Prime number, one of the article talk pages linked above, is at PR, and I encourage uninvolved editors to the article to give perspectives on how to improve it (English Wikipedia needs more math articles at FA!). I won't be involved with editing or reviewing the article (I don't think my comments will be well recevied by the respondents), but I will be following it to give ideas on how to improve my future reviews of this subject-area. If anyone has anything they want me to respond to, feel free to ping me (and sorry for the long post). Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  I debated internally as to whether I should say anything here and, if so, how to do it constructively. What follows is my best shot; apologies in advance. To start, I am happy that you nominate technical articles for review. It brings a little extra attention to them, and GARs do often lead to marginal but tangible improvements: cruft cleanup, more evident indications of which text is supported by which references, etc. That's all to the good. However, it seems to me that you are presenting yourself as a blameless participant, and I'm sorry, but I just can't agree.

  Let's take Talk:Znám's problem as an example, because I was there. Your comment that opened the "Article review" thread raised some legitimate concerns, but also had problems of its own. You wrote, The "History" section is also underdeveloped, with no information about the problem's use, application, or other historical events after 1972. Here's the state of the article then. The "History" section goes up to 1975, not 1972. OK, maybe that was a typo, and when I read it I didn't want to make a big deal of it. But then, if you scroll just a little down the article, the "Number of solutions" section explicitly describes work from 1983, 1988 and 1998 and also cites papers published in 2000 and 2002. I commented on the Talk page to point this out. I then changed the section heading from "History" to "Origin", which seemed a nice simple fix that clarified the text without having to move or rearrange anything. More than a week later, you replied on the Talk page, apparently without noticing that the article itself had been modified. David Eppstein's irked comment that you quoted above was his reply to your question. He correctly pointed out that the basis of your question no longer applied. You say, instead of getting an answer to a question ... I instead get an attack on how I comment on talk pages, but that's not right. You got an answer, albeit a less-than-perfectly-civil one (which DE then dialed back, appropriately).

  I hope you can appreciate how this kind of thing can contribute to an impression that you evaluate articles not just by a checklist (blue clicky number exactly at the end of each paragraph, no more than so-many thousand bytes, ...), but by a superficial application of one. If it looks like you aren't even skimming to see the most widely comprehensible part of the math, like names and dates, and that you aren't keeping up with how articles are being revised, you're going to exasperate people.

  And on that note, I am concerned that you are entrenching habits that will further exasperate people. You write, I am not confident that DE will ever agree with a comment I make or a citation needed tag that I place in a mathematics article simply because my signature is attached to the comment. First, speaking for myself (but doing my best to judge the community sentiment), I think that {{citation needed}} tags are more appreciated than a general, boilerplate "entire uncited paragraphs" kind of statement at a GAR or elsewhere. They are more immediately acted upon. If the consensus is that a particular {{citation needed}} was misplaced (because that paragraph was a summary of the rest of the section, because a footnote in that paragraph already covered the whole thing, etc.), then it gets removed. No big deal. Anyone here who is serious enough to devote enough energy to it to actually be irked by it has a dozen other articles that they also care about. If it identifies a real issue, then any of us including David Eppstein will work on fixing it. After you raised concerns with Znám's problem, he de-parenthesized old references, added a source, added another and another... Second, you've been focusing on David Eppstein's remarks and seemingly ignoring others'. At Talk:Prime number, it wasn't just David Eppstein who disagreed with you; JBL and I said pretty much the same thing. At Talk:Hilbert space#Article review, David Eppstein didn't participate at all, while three other editors and I were beffudled by/critical of your edits. One editor wrote, Instead of trying to make the explanation as clear as possible for readers, you are trying to tick some boxes on a checklist somewhere (for that matter, using a made up personal interpretation of the checklist items which is not reflective of the checklist text itself). Another: The review is personally like you have to follow guidelines according to the number of bytes, rather than focusing on the quality of clarifying technical things to laypersons. It was not David Eppstein who reverted your {{cn}} tags with the comment, Please read the sources that have already been cited. And despite all this, we've all been working on improving the references! Hilbert space had 149 footnotes at the start of May, versus 173 now.

  I can appreciate how a confrontational tone might drive an editor away from an area. I know this first-hand, because (and here I hope you will forgive me for being blunt) your comments have driven me away from the GA process. I am more than happy to write about math in my spare time. But I have no interest in any evaluation process that hinges on a a made up personal interpretation of [a] checklist. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  "How do you not already know this"? means that someone begins to be dubious about your reviewing skills. That's all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Actually that specific phrase was intended as a compliment (but unfortunately did not come off as one), out of respect for Z1720's large experience with GAs. I was surprised that there was even a small gap in their knowledge of the GA rules. Also, while I'm complimenting Z1720, I wanted to say that there is a place for superficial checkbox evaluation of articles, and that Z1720's use of that level of evaluation to find poorly-maintained and deteriorated articles in need of reclassification is such a place. For those articles, anything less superficial would be a waste of effort, and Z1720 is doing excellent work in identifying and handling these articles. It is only when these efforts run into false positives (articles for which the superficial evaluation is inaccurate or for which maintainers exist and are happy to make improvements) that superficiality causes friction and it would be better either to disengage or more fully engage. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein: I interpreted the comment as a scolding, not out of respect. I'm not perfect, and I'm going to make mistakes, and also suggestions that editors disagree with. How do I respond to a question like that, on the article talk page? If it was not a rhetorical question, then please post on my talk page rather than on article pages. I fully agree that there are lots of false positives in mathematics articles: the unreferenced script cannot distinguish from WP:CALC. Some of those math articles have both WP:CALC and unreferenced statements, and separating the two is difficult. It's fine to say "I checked and the cn tag isn't necessary." It's not fine to say "all of your tags were a bad edit". The editorializing is not necessary. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would point out that this comment often aligns with my own experiences in Z1720's attempts at review of mathematics articles. They often identify real citation and maintenance issues, but also produce a significant number of false positives. In particular, to add to Eppstein's particular frustration here, I have seen {{cn}} tags added to material that is already supported by nearby citations, to summary sentences at the beginnings of sections, or to parts of mathematical exposition where the citation naturally supports a theorem, definition, or paragraph as a whole rather than each isolated sentence. In mathematics articles, display equations can also interrupt what is logically a single paragraph, so a mechanical "uncited paragraph" approach can be misleading. The mechanical approach is particularly frustrating: WP:V appears to be reduced to a purely mechanical exercise, without actually checking the sources of a paragraph to see if they do indeed support what is written there. If an edor repeatedly tags material without first checking whether the existing cited source supports it, then criticism of that reviewing practice is not automatically a personal attack. I would oppose an IBAN, which would be extremely negative for for the project. A better outcome would be a mutual admonition: David Eppstein should avoid personalized phrasing such as "How do you not already know this?", while Z1720 should be more careful when reviewing technical mathematics articles, especially before adding citation-needed tags to material that may already be covered by existing sources or summarizes cited material below. I do not think a topic ban of Z1720 from mathematics articles is necessary at this point, but some clear guidance to use more care in mathematics GA/FA preliminary reviews/audits would be reasonable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Responding with the specific url cited above, which is in reference to this edit: Section summaries are not covered by MOS:LEAD, and the only place that I can find where it is talked about is WP:GA?. I would have responded about how I think that the section summary contributes to article bloat, but after 5 editors jumped to say that I was a bad reviewer because of one edit, I chose to WP:DROPTHESTICK. The same for the nowrap template: removing the template caused no changes on how I view the article and its instructions say to use it sparingly, and can talk more about this elsewhere if asked. Grace is all I'm asking for, but when editors question my skills before I have had a chance to discuss why I made a decision, then I need to spend time defending actions instead of describing why I think an article can be improved, which creates WP:BATTLEGROUND and is not appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Sławomir Biały: Sorry for the second ping: I wanted to also say that I try to get better with every time a citation needed is removed without action. For math articles specifically, when I began reviewing I used to be more aggressive with adding the tags, not realising that CALC had them as necessary. The uncited summaries at the top of prime number is the first time I think I have encountered that in a great while (I think they were used more frequently in the 2000s, but fell out of favour because DYK had strict citation requirements that made these sections difficult). I interpreted this paragraph as introducing a new topic (which usually requires citations) instead of a summary of the sections below (which per the GA criteria do not require citations). I am going to be more careful when I see this structure in other articles, taking a closer look at math articles because they are used more frequently there. On another note: I don't anticipate reviewing math articles in the near future because last week I finished going through the math articles at GA and I think all the math articles listed at WP:SWEEPS2025 were resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'd also tend to sympathise with David, per my own experience with the GAR process. I first encountered it when Z1720 posted about GA concerns to Lord Keynes's talk back in 2024. (The economist & mathematician Lord Keynes being my first GA, it was to cover the 2008 Keynesian resurgence that I joined Wikipedia in the first place. Admittedly, Im less keen on Keynes these days (as me on my talk if interested, as would be off topic here) - which is partly why I ignored the GAR & let the article be demoted. But it was also as I found the whole GAR process demotivating and didn't want to get involved. It took a few months to sink in, but it's also now made me never want to even do another GA review. David is to be commended for having the courage to express what I suspect a good many of us GA writers feel, even if (like all human endeavour) he did so imperfectly. I'm not suggesting a boomerang’s appropriate or that the GAR project ought to be disbanded - clearly there's a valid perspective to see it as helpful to Wikipedia's quality. But I would gently suggest Z1720 consider at least reducing the frequency they put math GA's up for review, and maybe spend a higher proportion of their wiki time away from GAR. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• @FeydHuxtable: If Lord Keynes was nominated for GAN, would it have passed in its current condition? If not, should the article have remained a GA if it doesn't fulfil the criteria? It's OK to be disappointed that an article is at GAR, and it's OK not to be motivated to fix up the article, but those are not the reviewer's fault. GAR was dead for several years and many editors were not returning to articles they cared about to ensure they met the GA criteria. This caused editors to oppose making GAs more prominent to readers, with a more recent proposal encountering less of those concerns. Some editors want me to fix up the articles I send to GAR, but there are almost 44,000 articles that are GA, most of which are articles on topics that I am not motivated to edit in. In my opinion, if an article needs to be fixed up, it is up to the editors who care about that article to do the work. If editors want a GAR throttling process, potentially similar to what is at FAR, they should propose it at WT:GA. But the best way to ensure that an article you care about doesn't get posted at GAR is to check them for uncited statements, outdated prose and bloated prose. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It would arguably have warranted a quick fail in its Aug 2024 state. LK (& von Neumann) are IMO influential & notable enough for exception from WP:TOOBIG. Otherwise , in fairness I thought your "GA concerns" comment perfectly spotlighted needed improvements. I agree with David that you are generally doing excellent work here. I mainly commented as I wanted to give David a commendation; among his other fine works I noticed it was David who is responsible for us having a Tiziana Margaria article who I recently edited after a 10 month wiki-break. Didnt mean to overly challenge your work here, though I standby my suggestion about reducing frequency unless maybe you start engaging more substantially as David suggested. If you wanted to further discuss would you mind visiting my talk or pinging me to yours, as this is becoming a little tangential to the purpose of ANI.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the commendation and the expansion of the Margaria article! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• @FeydHuxtable. Oh my ... The article is demoted because of +190,000 bytes, some unsourced, and a lack of copyedits. Meanwhile, the present GA John von Neumann has +220,000 bytes after some trimming. The heat-up starts at the beginning of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @FeydHuxtable. Almost forgot to say. Since I am not a fan of biography, you can go nominate your article again, Lord Keynes, whenever you want; there was a lack of support from many authors during GAR. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: The article might not be ready for GAN in its current version, as other concerns mentioned in the GAR are not resolved: there are uncited statements (the entire first paragraph of the "Early life and education" section, paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of "First World War", the first half of "Versailles peace conference", the paragraph in "Alienation", amongst others highlighted by this script). Investopedia and Mises Institute are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia and would need to be replaced (currently refs 73, 74, 92, 155, 156). If editors want more information, feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me in a WP:PR. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring almost 40 warnings about COPYVIO

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

---

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

User:Maxnoc has been warned nearly 40 times about copyright violations, but continues to copy-paste articles from different language wikis without properly providing attribution. They have never edited their talk page, not even once. JTtheOG (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not unaware of anything, it's just that it's an extra effort to search for and insert the long text of the relevant attribution every time. Maxnoc (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

So you've knowingly committed blatant violations dozens and dozens of times. Nice. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

No, not at all, it's just because I didn't enter the attribution in the subject field, I'll enter it. Maxnoc (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It being too difficult or time consuming is never an excuse. Electricmemory (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Maxnoc, many editors like to keep commonly used templates on their userpage, so they can easily access them when needed without having to search them up. Would you consider adding the below to your userpage, and commit to using it as an edit summary when you create translated articles?

<code>Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.</code>

nil ^nz 04:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so I have to put it in the subject field when the page contains text taken from other wikis. Maxnoc (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for not doing that immediately after you posted this. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

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

4chan Meatpuppetry on the AfD for 'Goyslop'

https://www.google.com/search?q=4chan+DO+NOT+LET+WIKIPEDIA+DELETE+THIS+KEK

Some neo-somethings on 4chan are now asking others to meatpuppet the AfD discussion on Goyslop. I need ECP like right now on WP:CT/AP. They are starting to come — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2x2x2x2x2 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• As the starter of the Afd... The thread was already archived on 4chan several hours ago; they could start another one though, so it might be best to keep an eye on things. However, it would probably be suitable to disregard the TA edits in that timeframe. I stand by my opinion on the notability/suitability of the topic for an article but I am sorry it turned into such a mess! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with @PARAKANYAA on disregarding the edits by the IPs. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yea, this feels like a kinda duh moment. Tankishguy 05:26, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  but for the love of god, take my vote here with a grain of salt Tankishguy 05:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There is also an Incels.is thread, which I only noticed now, though that is less canvass-ey. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

Zuck28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zahrah S. Khan has been subject to repeated promotional editing (as noted on the Talk page as well). I had cleaned that up in 2024 . Large promo cruft was soon re-inserted into the article by Jimandjam (who created the article but no longer active apparently). I cleaned it up shortly thereafter . A PR account later repeated earlier edits , an account named after the BLP (@Zahrah S Khan) further restored the promo cruft , this was undone by Arjayay who also added a COI template. Zuck28 has since then removed the COI notice and restored the earlier promo cruft in toto , .

Zuck needs to explain their edits for I see no reason other than WP:UPE or WP:COI. An ECP here would also be good regardless.

@Nikkimaria: Further pinging the editor who initially tagged COI on the Talk page. Gotitbro (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that Zuck has previously denied UPE . I do not find it convincing, nor did Zuck participate in the previous ANI discussion about their UPE (ANI thread). Gotitbro (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It has been further brought to my attention (on my Talk page) that there have been multiple UPE related incidents for Zuck, including another previous UPE thread: , a block for UPE, and their entire cache of created articles being promo adverts with numerous warnings for it (many eventually deleted).

BD2412 noted at the ANI thread that unblocking sysop Rosguill made this comment when performing the action "due to the circumstances of both the block and this unblock, any editing that is suggestive of COI/UPE will be met with high scrutiny. For your own well-being, I recommend avoiding UPE-prone topics, such as biographies of living people or creating articles about active organizations"

It is time to enforce that (block, tban or otherwise) for Zuck is clearly not interested in addressing any UPE concerns (which are clear as day). Gotitbro (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The UPE/COI (and disruption) becomes more and more apprent when you look into it. Here is Zuck removing the fact that Zara was married, falsely claiming the info to be unsourced/unverifiable when we have an RS right there, doing it not only at her only article , but at the article of the person she was married to as well . Gotitbro (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Zuck28 has denied paid editing in this conversation, where they refer to WP:AGF, and where several TAs jump in and argue for Zuck's innocence. It's difficult to take these TAs as anything other than Zuck logged out. It's also difficult to understand what they say, but I suppose comments such as "no need to read this becouse after read also editor works as COI you to" and "It doesn't matter because we do so much voluntary work, but we made 2-3 payments out of 10 articles so what.. Wikipedia pays you for your useless hard work" are admissions/defense of UPE ("we made 2-3 payments out of 10 articles so what") plus accusations against Gotitbro of being paid themeselves. Remarkably unconvincing, as Gotitbro says, especially together with Zuck28's history as narrated by Gotitbro above. I agree it's time for a block, and have indeffed Zuck28. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC).

Could the TAs be joe jobs? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Those TA's didn't read like they were defending them TBH, but their posts were so badly written that it's really hard to tell. Blue-Sonnet 07:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• I would support a WP:DUCK ban of Zuck28 at this point. If they're not UPE or COI, then at this point they are trolling by contentiously editing in areas from which they have been warned away. BD2412 T 19:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Cockroach Janta Party & SALlM BlN YOUSUF - edit warring, WP:OWN

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

---

Cockroach Janta Party this is a new political party.

• WP:OWN & Infobox CT: Article creator @SALlM BlN YOUSUF: appears to be assuming ownership of the article and reverting to the version he prefers, even if it is a less-constructive version. One example which also falls into Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes. Salim keeps trying to include File:Cjp Flag.png (which seems AI-generated) to the page, despite this not being any official logo of the party. In a case of citogenisis, it has now been used by some people online. They keep removing an actual logo (per CJP social media) to insert their AI-generated one. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. A discussion on the talk page, Talk:Cockroach_Janta_Party#Lack_of_official_flag_/_logo proved fruitless. IMO Salim's logo needs to be removed since it has not been approved in any capacity by the CJP.
• POTENTIAL AI-generated text: I do not have 100% confirmation of this, however this edit seems to contain AI-generated text based on the tone and language. I have removed the obvious SYNTH.

This article is also very highly viewed (200,000 in the 1 day it's been up). There are quite a lot of edits to this page. Requesting eyes on this page as there's quite a lot of disruptive editing, edit warring, quick-changing information (see page history) even with semi-protection. And while I'm sure Salim is a good-faith editor, he needs to understand that the image is not appropriate for the page and he can't keep edit-warring the image he prefers back. jolielover♥talk 08:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, he's gotten many warnings on his talk page from last month: User_talk:SALlM_BlN_YOUSUF#April_2026 jolielover♥talk 08:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

More edit warring: 1, 2, 3. @Samyfit556b:, although I agree with that logo over the other one, you also cannot edit war. jolielover♥talk 11:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The irony being that the official logo is also obviously AI generated. God help us all. Athanelar (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, just keep what I uploaded as it actually is all over social media, so don’t change it. Samyfit556b (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Based on this comment, it appears Salim created the logo, and is trying to get the party to officially adopt it.

Wikipedia should not serving as a vehicle for an editor to promote their own creations like this. nil ^nz 12:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 jolielover♥talk 12:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

c:File:Cockroach Janta Party (icon).png this is a logo actually by the party jolielover♥talk 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, just keep what I uploaded as it actually is all over social media, so don’t change it. Samyfit556b (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that CJP is not a political party, atleast not until they register with Election Commission of India anyway which I don't think they want to do as it's more of just a movement. qedk (t 愛 c) 14:00, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 48hrs for edit warring, which gives time for this discussion to take place without further disruption on the article itself. In the likely AI-generated edit I'm seeing rule-of-three and em-dashes (also a cite to the Daily Mirror, of all places). Blue-Sonnet 17:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

There's still a high volume of edits (and views, 700,000 in the 2 days it has been up), however, what's now more concerning is off-wiki harassment to the page's editors. This stems from a right-wing conspiracy that the attention the party has gotten is manufactured by foreign actors, pointing out the page creator's and my possible origin. Unsure if I'm allowed to link here, but discussions about the page can easily be found online, especially on Twitter. jolielover♥talk 09:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The harassment includes attempted reports to Indian government agencies & officials jolielover♥talk 09:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the Social media restrictions section of the article, this is definitely snowballing online so it's not surprising the Wikipedia article is a main focus. Blue-Sonnet 09:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There's now an article about it, from our lovely friends at OpIndia. It is on the global blacklist so I can't put it here. jolielover♥talk 15:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

(as this is a public board, I must clarify that my 'lovely' comment is sarcastic) jolielover♥talk 16:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I am wondering if the OpIndia article (or maybe just the wider social media discussion) prompted the AfD nom. Like I said there, the nom seems entirely disconnected from the reality of the article; that, combined with the tone of writing, makes it sound like it was LLM-generated. Combine that with the fact that it was nominated by an editor who hasn't made any other edits in more than a year. I could be wrong, but it looks odd. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh that's AI-generated, lots of "appears to", use of em-dash and very noncommittal. I'll note that their Talk page comments also strongly read as AI. Blue-Sonnet 16:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, also looking at some edit summaries and edits, like this one to Porbandar (though most of their article namespace edits do seem AI-free, with a handful of iffy cases). I think you can also see a pretty clear distinction in writing style between some very AI-sounding talk page comments, and others, like this. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

So after being page blocked from Cockroach Janta Party for 48 hours by @CoconutOctopus, it appears that @SALlM BlN YOUSUF has now been edit warring on a second page, Abhijeet Dipke, by repeatedly reinserting his logo. A wider block may be needed. nil ^nz 09:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've reached out to them; although I fully understand this may be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, I figured it was worth a shot anyway. Blue-Sonnet 17:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked them from mainspace indefinitely. They're welcome to communicate their intentions. Star Mississippi 17:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Diogo sfreitas - returning after ANI flu

Diogo sfreitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was at ANI only 16 days ago (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1222#Diogo sfreitas - unsourced additions and now fake sources) regarding their persistent addition of unsourced content, borderline WP:NOTHERE behaviour, and addition of fake sources. In that discussion they didn't respond once by themselves, choosing instead to respond using an LLM, then getting a case of ANI flu and vanishing. When prompted to rejoin the discussion by Blue Sonnet, they responded on their userpage with "You have to calm down a bit. I am tired.", but didn't return to ANI. They also continued responding on their talk page, but still never returned. In the end the thread was archived with no action.

However, they appear to have returned... and immediately resumed their old behaviour - . This edit restored a massive amount of unsourced content, removed maintenance templates, restored unreliable sources, and undid intervening edits by unrelated editors.

It's pretty clear to me now that they're WP:NOTHERE - perhaps this time they'd care to explain their actions. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

They're now edit warring that article (I'm staying well clear while this thread is open), and leaving shouty messages on my talk page Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A fourth revert now... (this is why I'm steering clear) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket just making you aware of this thread because of your edits to the article Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - as these 3 diffs show , this user is trying to counter this by doing their own ANI report but failing to do this correctly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  With my AGF hat on (which is starting to grow a little raggedy...), I don't think they're trying to do anything in revenge - it could well be that they believe the edits are vandalism, and think a report is the correct thing to do. I've attempted multiple times to explain sourcing requirements to them, but to no avail... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

So this post seems to be accusing you of abusing your powers and vandalising articles, and this diff repeats a lot of what was said in their previous post but then goes on to say that you are bullying. @Diogo sfreitas: do you have any evidence of this alleged bullying as that is a very serious accusation? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've blocked them from article space indefinitely until they can demonstrate they understand the issues with their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  They are talking on the article talk page (which of course is the correct thing for content disputes) but despite numerous pokes they aren’t talking here Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Block site-wide. They've had plenty of opportunity and aren't interested in discussion. I think we have reached the inevitable conclusion. Site-wide block by consensus of the community. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

TA and personal attacks

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

---

• ~2026-26762-18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continuous personal attacks despite warning. They are also doubling down on violent speech. Mellk (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I reported to AIV since I saw their first attack on their user talk page after they were warned. Only found them due to the Edit Filter log they had triggered. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, AIV is indeed better, I now realize. Mellk (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the personal attacks that they made get rev-deleted? Thanks, SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Done the five linked here and a few more I found that were egregious. Morwen (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Matt574

User Matt574 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has established a pattern of disruptive editing through repeatedly moving draft articles in the AFC process out of draft, publishing them in article space. They have been warned on their talk page numerous times, and acknowledged warnings, but continued with the disruptive behavior. Example diffs here, here, here (second move for same article), here, and here.

Additionally, this user removed a tag for an article that was at AFD here. Though they claimed ignorance in this case, considering their history I suspect they were attempting to disrupt the AFD, or they have a serious WP:CIR issue. nf utvol (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I have sent severla of Matt574's moves from draft to mainspace for AfD, and you will see my messages, carefully worded, at their user talk page. I was several interactiins frim making a report here, and am grateful to Nfutvol for their intervetion. I think at this stage that they have the abioity to be a useful editor, but reserve the righty to vary that opinion over time. I feel they need firm guidance at present, not yet any form of sanctions 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked them from page moves and creations. This has been disruptive for long enough. Star Mississippi 18:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO on The Floor (American game show)

The Floor (American game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've previously attempted solving this issue myself last year, but was reverted multiple times (, , ), and it appears that someone(s) readded similar WP:COPYVIO summaries, and it's just continued on to now.

For example, the two episodes added on today are season 5 episodes 11 and 12, "The Ice King Melts" and "The Fight to The Final" The two summaries added for those episodes here are as follows:

• "There is no safety net left on The Floor to protect players as a breathtaking winning streak has every remaining player on edge with 17 players ready to do everything it takes to win."
• "The Season 5 finale delivers the most anticipated showdowns of the entire season in the fiercest fight ever for the $250,000 grand prize."

Via the episodes' listing on The Futon Critic, these are their respective summaries via that:

• "There is no safety net left on The Floor, hosted by Rob Lowe, to protect players in the most thrilling finale yet. A breathtaking winning streak has every remaining player on edge"
• "the Season 5 finale delivers the most anticipated showdowns of the entire run. 17 players are ready to leave absolutely everything on the floor for a shot at winning the life-changing $250,000 prize"

While not purely the same exact thing, as WP:COPYVIO notes, "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism".

Just as another quick example, season 5 episode 1, "New Year, New Floor". Once again, the summary on the Wikipedia article:

• "100 new trivia players dive straight in for a shot at $250,000. Chills go through the air as a new game advantage sends one contestant into the final stages of the game."

And via the episode listing on The Futon Critic:

• "In a dramatic two-part premiere of The Floor, hosted by Rob Lowe, 100 new trivia players dive straight in to take their shot at $250,000. This season, they will feel a chill when a new game advantage sends one contestant into the final stages of the game."

Even the following episode, "The Expert-Slayer Strikes", gives quite a closely-paraphrased summary:

• "A bold challenger shakes up The Floor with a fearless approach in pursuit of a crucial early advantage."
• "Tonight, a bold challenger will shake up The Floor with a fearless approach in pursuit of a crucial early advantage."

I've been trying to see how (possibly) bad it is through the Copyvio Detector, but I'm guessing it is likely yielding low percentages for the article due to how lengthy it currently is.

On another note, I'd imagine with how lengthy the article is, I would suggest splitting it up into separate season articles, as previously suggested at Talk:The Floor (American game show)#Should we split the show into its respective seasons?. Should be noted that the show has already been renewed for a sixth and seventh season, so if it is not split now, it'll only be getting worse as time goes on. Magitroopa (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more suitable for the copyright noticeboard? MiasmaEternal☎ 00:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly didn't even realize that even existed, or even thought about that, haha. Thanks! Magitroopa (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

If we delete the episode summaries (Game scores not included), would that lift the ban? Lonniemitchell22 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:ShiraziPersPolis and associated IPs

Requesting administrator attention re ongoing disruptive conduct by ShiraziPersPolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and two associated IPs). I am not involved in the current content dispute; the user's behavior has escalated with other editors. The conduct is easily seen on their short user talk page (permanent link of user talk page).

Their user talk page shows:

• repeated incivility and PA, including hostile remarks in both English and Persian
• using non-English (slang Iranian using English letters) for aggressive comments (some I translated)
• OWNBEHAVIOR, telling others not to edit articles they are working on
• they changed sourced content without updating citations, broke citations, and ignored advice to seek help at WP:VP
• they are editing in an area covered by Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan
• they made trivial edits to multiple French city articles apparently to reach autoconfirmed status

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Outright Xenophobia for easier reference . Borgenland (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Their Talk page alone is concerning - I would have thought a professor would be somewhat open to collaboration, but this person just isn't interested in working with others in any way whatsoever. Blue-Sonnet 07:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Despite being told to refrain from altering sourced info and that they are not yet allowed to edit WP:GSAA topics, ShiraziPersPolis is still doing it, even edit warring (easier to show the reverts made against them, ). Combined with the rest of this report, looks like WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I note that they frequently edit logged out (I can see six TA's with TAIV) so any block may need to include those, however they've also confirmed they use a VPN to edit.

I've urged them to come to ANI to discuss their editing, although I'm not sure how much good this will do considering their apparent aversion to collaboration and general civility.

I hope I'm wrong. Blue-Sonnet 17:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Quick update, they replied - whilst I don't speak the language, from what I can find out this might be a sarcastic response. Blue-Sonnet 18:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I added some more translations to that thread. At this point, I'm certain their English skills are not up to understanding en-Wikipedia policies or collaboration with English speaking users.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• ShiraziPersPolis blocked from article space until they come here and make a convincing report. If they do then unblock without wait for me to see it. The the TA's on their talkpage are blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. Where there more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 04:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any on their Talk or TAIV, but the mention of VPN's does worry me a little. Hopefully Grorp and HOI will spot any should they arise.

  That said, I'm concerned that there's a previously blocked editor who was trying to add the same 30 million figure - compare this to this. The earlier account was adding unsourced information on a very similar way. Blue-Sonnet 16:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not active in that subject area (I became aware of the editor because of an edit to a French city article on my watchlist), but HistoryofIran should maybe alert Wikiproject:Iran as well as getting some of the articles semi-protected to reduce IP edits via VPN in that topic area.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch, this may indeed be ShiraziPersPolis. Not only are they making the same edits, they are also making those edits in the French Wikipedia just like ShiraziPersPolis . ShiraziPersPolis, when writing in Persian, also uses the transliteration "Tch" , which I've never seen before, I assume it's a French transliteration? Would certainly fit with their geolocation to France and edits in the French Wikipedia, and the fact that AhmadTchahi's name also has "Tch" in it. I will file an SPI in a moment. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Phew, glad my hunch was right! It's too much of a coincidence that one was banned and the other appeared around a month later to do the same thing. This edit request is also written in a very familiar fashion (AI/translation?). Blue-Sonnet 16:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing and refusal to comunicate

Newcumer80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned on at least 5 occasions about their disruptive editing.

1. Here (by BlueboyLINY)
2. Here & here for the same exact problem
3. Here with stronger wording
4. Final warning issued here.

User has not once responded to these warnings or tried to WP:ENGAGE in any way.

When this edit of theirs broke the Infobox and blanked information, I attempted to fix it. Their responses was to immediately revert my fix with no attempt to address the issue that had been identified.

I request admin intervention and at the very least a temp block from the article namespace until Newcumer80 agrees to at the very least ENGAGE with other editors and make some attempt to check their edits are not breaking pages. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

They did respond once in March, dismissing it as 'bullying', and probably should've been at a final warning long ago. Nathannah • 📮 01:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Nathannah that statement by them actually predates all my warnings so I missed it! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zackmann08, your warnings to this user are very WP:BITEY. It has been discussed before (discussion, discussion) in response to reports you've made on this page that making occasional and inadvertent typos in infoboxes is not disruptive editing.

The first two problems you dropped warnings about were missing equal signs in an infobox (diff, diff), which is an easy mistake to make, especially for a newcomer as Newcumer80 was at the time and honestly still is. Your third warning to this user, which included a threat of a block, came after Newcumer80 missed another single equal sign in a template (diff). Your "final warning" came when the user typed "yearsactive" instead of "years_active" (diff). None of these mistakes broke the templates in the sense of showing error messages for readers; they simply didn't show the mistyped parameter. (And as I've mentioned before, fixing these errors 5 minutes or 10 minutes after they're made and then dropping a harsh warning does not demonstrate WP:AGF that an editor may fix his or her mistake.)

Newcumer80's typos in infoboxes do not warrant any sanction, and I have no comment on whether Newcumer80 should be sanctioned for other reasons. The comment surfaced by @Nathannah is not good, but it's also a very early edit. The edit warring warned against by @BlueboyLINY does not appear to have recurred. Perhaps there are other issues that need to be addressed, and yes, Newcumer80 should realize that they need to ENGAGE in conversations on user talk (although Zackmann08's templated messages are not phrased in a way that invites conversation or engagement).

However, Zackmann08's behaviour warrants a WP:BOOMERANG. Not using the preview function, or making typos when adding information to infoboxes, is not a violation of a Wikipedia behavioural guideline. Indeed, our policy is that perfection is not required. But "Do not bite the newcomers" is a behavioral guideline, and it has been violated here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Repeatedly making the same error with zero attempt to communicate or acknowledge the errors, is, in fact, disruptive. The user was very gently warned and informed about how to check for these mistakes. Even calling my initial posts on their talk page "warnings" is strong. They were educating posts explaining the issue. They were never even so much as acknowledged and the behavior continued. So yes, eventually, I used stronger language. Your interpretation of WP:BITE would imply that every single UW template is invalid so I 100% disagree with your interpretation.

If any admin feels that my behavior in this case is improper, I will gladly reflect on that, but I take request for WP:BOOMERANG sactions from an editor who has engaged in undisclosed paid editing as Dclemens1971 as absurd and show they have not done their research. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

(You were the one who called your templated messages "warnings" when you said User has been warned on at least 5 occasions) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying. I did not mean that you exclusively had called them warnings. I did indeed call them warnings. My point was that the first two "warnings" were so gentle that referring to them as warnings was almost too strong, but I'm not trying to get into a fight over semantics of language. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Last time I offered feedback on one of your AN/I filings, you said you appreciated it and would re-examine your process. It is certainly your prerogative now to accept feedback only from admins, but posting at a very public forum like AN/I inevitably invites feedback from non-admins as well. As for your invocation of the edits I made several years ago related to my employer at that time, those edits were wrong, and I certainly regret doing that and said so when I disclosed it publicly and when I proactively notified Arbcom of this history. I'm also aware that other editors might seek to deploy my past actions against me when I comment on unrelated topics at AN/I or elsewhere. But my regrets, real as they are, seem neither here nor there, as I cannot figure out how they relate to the question at hand: whether your practices of templating editors for minor infobox typos and bringing them to AN/I for the same constitute biting newcomers and failing to assume good faith. But I'll leave it to an admin or to other community members to evaluate whether a boomerang is warranted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: first an apology. That comment by me was rude, unhelpful and uncalled for and I apologize. Calling out mistakes you made in the past is definitely sitting in a glass house throwing stones not to mention just an ass hole thing to say and I'm sorry.

A few points I will make on the actual issue at hand:

1. I am constantly monitoring Unknown parameter categories as pages that show up there are 9 times out of 10 vandalism. Editors inserting things like |best friend= (which I have seen more times than you can imagine) among other vandalism to the page. This is my way of combating that vandalism.
2. Anytime any user adds an unknown parameter I drop a custom written message on their talk page informing them about the issue and trying to gently educate them.
3. 99% of users respond positively to this message with either a thanks! had no idea that was an issue and appreciate the info or an oops! Dumb typo. thanks for fixing! When users respond this way, I try to always follow up with a No worries! Far from a huge problem, but something to be aware of in the future!
4. When the same user, repeatedly makes the same mistake and refuses to listen to the advice given and refuses to respond or WP:ENGAGE in any way, shape or form... Then I feel the need to bring them to an ANI.

I agree that not WP:BITEing newbies and always WP:AGF are vital pillars of this community, I would argue that so is WP:ENGAGEing with other editors as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. When editors refuse to address concerns raised repeatedly by multiple other editors, that does in fact violate policy. Now I am open to withdrawing this if Newcumer80 were to actually respond, but thus far... silence. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

My talk page is being attacked.

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

---

Help me. My talk page seems to be the target of long-term abuse. Just look at its history. Please help! I don't feel safe. AZenit3 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks like filters are catching a lot of the edits and the offenders accounts are being blocked, they can't do anything bad that we can't fix so please don't worry.

An admin can protect the page if needed, but for now the vandal catchers will spot the damage and fix it. I'll also keep an eye on your page too until an admin comes along. Blue-Sonnet 07:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

New vandal already. Q69c. Staraction reverted it though. AZenit3 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Now, @Q69c is replacing both my and @Staractions's talk page signatures with n!gger. AZenit3 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough. I want semi-protection of my talk page. AZenit3 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@AZenit3 Try your best to just ignore and revert per WP:DENY. Usually, recognising their actions feeds the vandalism more. I know it's easier said than done, but perhaps take a break for a bit. Others will clean up the mess in the meantime. Wishing you the best. Staraction (talk · contribs) 07:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already requested semi-protection of my talk page. AZenit3 (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

You've got two of us looking after your page - they can't do any permanent damage so go and make a cup of tea or play a game, this will be sorted by the time you get back! Blue-Sonnet 07:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! There was a good book I just bought I was thinking of reading. Be back in ~40 minutes! AZenit3 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that's either a short book or you're a very fast reader. I bought a book four weeks ago, and I'm still only halfway through. (My fault for buying Dickens I suppose). ~2026-19405-38 (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by new user

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

---

ThinkTankResearcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ThinkTankResearcher, editing exclusively in the WP:CT/SA area, made this recent edit. The clearly WP:PA vio edit summary also contains multiple instances of a derogatory slur.

There were other WP:ECR vio edits in the WP:CT/IMH space (I've now notified them of the sanctions/restrictions). A firmer warning for the PA by a sysop would be good. Gotitbro (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• However, that edit was on 30 March, and they haven't edited since 4 April, so I would wait to see if they return before doing that. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• I did leave a comment on their user page, assuming they come back, explaining everyone needs to be civil, or they will be blocked. At this stage, that is about all we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

ChasePlowman58

Concerned about ChasePlowman58's behaviour and edits, particularly a lack of communication. Initially noticed the editor on 2026 California gubernatorial election, where they broke 3RR in a lengthy attempt to incorrectly alter the capitalization of a word in the lede, despite being informed by multiple editors (including myself) why the word is not capitalized. I left two messages on their talk page as to why editors were reverting their change, both messages were ignored. The latter read, "You immediately resumed this same behaviour. You clearly have seen this, please acknowledge it. If this continues, it will be going to ANI. You cannot choose to just ignore other editors and their edits." (No acknowledgement, continued edit warring – I have followed through).

They later appeared on Susan Collins, where they repeatedly tried to change the year of Collins's official portrait from 2014 to 2022. I noted this in my edit summary during my first revert (ignored), and then left a level 1 warning on their talk page about it (ignored). They tried to do it again, without explanation. The image has the word "2014" in it (as does the image's description, timestamp etc.), so I cannot see how the latter two were good faith edits.

Later, on the same page, they tried to alter a part of the lede from "Generally considered a moderate Republican, Collins is often a pivotal vote in the Senate." to "A moderate Republican, Collins is often a pivotal vote in the Senate." The sources that were already present for this sentence support the first (original) phrasing, and not the second. While this was explained to them, they reverted back to their new version with the edit summary "Many citations describe her as moderate and/or bipartisan" (still no actual sources to substantiate their change). They then did it again, using the edit summary "Please stop vandalizing". 331dot warned them about this on their talk page.

They then moved on to Voto Latino, adding the following sentence to the lede: "A Voto Latino interview with President Joe Biden just before the 2024 election is considered to have done substantial damage to the Kamala Harris campaign for President". Any editor should know this is not acceptable language, especially when it is entirely unsourced. Interestingly, looking at the page's history, it was protected multiple times due to extensive edit warring by IP accounts, all of whom were attempting to add the exact same unsourced statement into the lede.

From here, they moved to Steve Schmidt, where they added more unsourced and dubious claims into a lede (that Schmidt helped John McCain pick Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008). This edit was promptly reverted by administrator Muboshgu. They also tried to remove a very intentional red link from the lede, multiple times. I directed them towards WP:REDYES, to which they replied "There is no link LOL". That response made it clear that they are not even attempting to comply with or read Wikipedia policies.

Additionally, on 2026 United States Senate election in Maine, they repeatedly attempted to remove the word "presumptive", which was agreed on via the talk page after a lengthy debate. They tried to replace it with "likely" and even "putative". They ignored a request to read the talk page.

I am most concerned about the repeated attempts to change the year of Susan Collins's portrait. They have refused to answer anything on their talk page or engage meaningfully, while breaking 3RR many times with multiple editors. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

They hadn't received a CTOP notice for US politics, so I gave them one. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

And I gave them {{uw-3rr}} for Susan Collins. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

134 edits and they've never used a Talk page. They edit on mobile, but so do I and it's hard to miss the big red circle on the top right when you get a notification. I noticed they've got email enabled, so I've tried a direct ping on their userpage in case that works. Blue-Sonnet 17:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that we can cut the editor a little bit of slack, but contentious unreferenced BLP policy related edits to high profile US politics articles must come to an immediate stop. They are implying, for example, that Maria Teresa Kumar is somehow responsible for Joe Biden losing the 2024 US presidential election. That is not on. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the red circle obvious but then again I know what it is and always purposefully look out for it. If you're new, it could easily just be another icon on a busy screen.

Also agree about that edit - not good at all. Blue-Sonnet 20:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChasePlowman58 You have just made a number of edits that were immediately reverted, so you have clearly seen this. Please respond. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChasePlowman58, are you aware that we can see when you edit? You just uploaded a copyright violation to Wikimedia and repeatedly tried to add it into a Wikipedia article. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a ban from article space would encourage them to actually communicate. --Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I have concerns about general competency. They have tried to upload a copyrighted image multiple times, and have attempted to re-add it to The Devil Wears Prada 2 at least 4 times in the last twelve hours.

They initially added the image as a thumbnail, which was reverted – edit summary used for reversion: "Reverting violation of MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE ("When adding an image to an infobox, thumbnails should NOT be used.")". They have clearly not understood this simple explanation (or chosen to disregard it, which is worse) because they tried to revert that, stating "It’s a significantly higher quality version. What should we be doing differently?"

Someone fixed the thumbnail issue for them, which is when I realized the image was a copyright violation and was uploaded with supposed permission of the creator, who was given the name "The studio". I removed the image immediately for this reason, stating "The image has to be low quality because it is copyrighted.. you have uploaded a copyright violation and marked the creator of the image as "The studio"." ChasePlowman58 reverted this, stating "It’s the exact same image, just a higher quality". I am just unsure of what to even say, at this point. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

A CIR block might be in order here. The refusal to communicate or read/understand edit summaries of others as well as the ridiculous amount of edit warring is not a very good sign. Lovelyfurball (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Can an admin please consider at least a mainspace block to force communication?

This has been going on for a while and it can't continue like this - we desperately need to talk to them properly.

A CIR indef is also fine, but there needs to be some sort of intervention - they either don't know how, or don't want, to talk to other editors outside edit summaries. Blue-Sonnet 00:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Indef blocked from article space. They can engage on talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Concerning edits from two recent TAs

• ~2026-30459-70 (more recent activity)
• ~2026-30119-59

I am concerned about the recent and frequent editing coming from these two TAs. Based on the patterns and similarities between the edits, I believe the accounts belong to the same person. Between the two accounts, the user has received 5 warnings. They also received a message asking for clarification about their edits, to which they never responded.

The edits have been focused on Iran-related articles (with some broader Central Asia-related articles, such as Uzbek language), and consist of the following elements: changing 'Iranian' to 'Persian'; inserting 'Persian' where it may otherwise not be specified or needed; changing pre-existing content so that it may no longer be reflective of pre-existing cited sources; adding content without citing sources; adding content stemming from original research and/or opinion; generally not adhering to a neutral point of view; misleading edit summaries.

Even with reverts from me and other users, with edit summaries explaining the issues being reason for reversion, the user has re-added the same content multiple times. In some instances they have included antagonistic edit summaries ('stay mad LOL'), as well as general claims of AI use by other users ('stop embarrassing yourself, the previous version was a text written with AI.') and intent to keep making their own edits ' i will continue edting this page until you understand the few changes i have made actually HELP the reader better understand').

The user has made no effort to address the issues pointed out to them via edit summary or warning, and seems to me WP:NOTHERE.

For my own part, I was interpreting the edits as falling under the vandalism umbrella, so I have reverted quite a few times before stopping, particularly on the articles Fesenjān, Gheimeh, Khoresh, and Qajar art. At the time of submitting this help request, Uzbek language and Dushanbe have not seen edits after my restorations of previous versions.

I did report both accounts to AIV after stopping my attempts to revert these edits, with another user supporting the reports and adding that the editing from the TA user is quite tendentious. However, the conclusion was that the edits from the TAs were not vandalism.

I am still concerned about the edits and the large volume of them, and thought coming here would be helpful. Because I have already participated in disruptive editing with these TAs, even though it was unintentional, I will not be reverting any more of their edits, and will be avoiding related articles.

I have formatted this report to my best ability, and I hope it is sufficient to start an evaluation and reach a resolution. Thank you very much for any help and guidance anyone can give. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 18:43, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of these editors(?)' contributions, you might want to request the temporary account IP viewer permission if you foresee getting involved in situations like this in the future. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the second time someone's suggested I request TAIV, and I think that's a good idea. Thank you! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 21:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Using TAIV I can confirm these accounts share an IP, the full list is:

• ~2026-30459-70
• ~2026-29285-08
• ~2026-28693-72
• ~2026-30119-59

Blue-Sonnet 19:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Heavy amounts of POV pushing in inappropriate ways to promote a certain viewpoint regarding culture/language surrounding Iran. They delete etymologies, transliterations without proper reasons, de-emphasize cultural exchange without source material, and when they do give reasons for removing sources, they seem to be on a nationalist basis, disapproving of turkic inclusions.(See lower line 40.) Just a few examples to supplement the report. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks by IP on talk page

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

---

I recently reverted two talk page edits by ~2026-30120-05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see ) that contained borderline libelous comments about two BLPs. Their response to this was to leave a message on my talk page accusing me of racism against Chinese people, among other personal attacks. I think a block is in order, as this user is clearly not here to engage in constructive discussion to improve the encyclopedia. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely unacceptable. Blocked for a month. Fences&Windows 21:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted their last four edits and blocked the background IP range as well. As F&W says, unacceptable. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Looking for a lift to my "All Things Michael Jacksonian" topic ban to participate in arbitration case

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Looking for a lift to my "All Things Michael Jacksonian" topic ban to participate in arbitration case

 – 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 20:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Bogus non-free tag on a widely-used NASA image

File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg (taken by the Cassini–Huygens spacecraft) had a bogus non-free tag applied by Kauevasco2012 (talk · contribs), resulting in mass deletion across the project by JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, and it's been undone. "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.". Is this chronic, intractable behavior problem? Have you availed yourself of the opportunity of discussing the issue on their talk page? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that being a locally featured image and picture of the day exposes it to this kind of vandalism. If it were not those things it would not have a page on en to vandalize in this way; it would only be hosted on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it did count under urgency. The edit was also immediately followed by arbitrary removal of content and image changes at Neptune () and Jupiter (, ). Also check out the history of File:Neptune Full.jpg on May 10. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

All the edits, as well as some that happened before this incident like at Giant planet involved replacing images with older, less color-accurate versions of those images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see where it's a good idea to bring something like this to the community. Is there a way for the bot to somehow check for vandalism before making mass deletions? Maybe such files could at least be extended-confirmed-protected or higher? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend protecting high-use files and local featured pictures, of which File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg is both of the above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to look further than I have, but Kauevasco2012's contribs are very, very problematic. I'm seeing a LOT of questionable stuff that needs investigating. This is either trolling, WP:CIR, or vandalism and needs attention. So yeah, this is definitely an ANI issue, and belongs here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Blue Square Thing

I'll begin by saying that I'm at the end of my tether, and I ask that this person is banned from editing Wikipedia on the grounds of WP:CIR, WP:BITE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:OWN, and many more, including WP:NOTHERE.

You will undoubtedly see that BST apparently quit the site in November 2025 after renaming himself as User:Anifail Aneglur Iawn. I have already been in offsite conversation with an administrator about this person, and I was advised—rightly enough—to hold fire until BST returns.

I have been told this evening by a friend in The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (the ACS) that BST intends to return very soon with the intention of reverting everything I have done since last November. Apparently, he particularly objects to me having removed CricketArchive (a statistical database which is generally unreliable as a source for cricket before the mid-19th century), and replaced it with offline book sources. I assure you that the book sources are not only reliable, but also reputable.

A good startpoint for understanding what BSTis about can be seen in this message] sent to him by a respected administrator in January 2024. Despite being categorically informed that his editing adds up to "not a good look", there was no improvement.

It's merely the tip of the iceberg, but if you read Talk:1755 English cricket season#Questions for User:Blue Square Thing, that encapsulates the problems that BST has caused, and which he continued to cause until his abrupt departure in November 2025. In short, he completely wrecked our coverage of cricket history in the 18th century, and in much of the 19th century. A massive breach of WP:PRESERVE that I have been rectifying for six months now, and I'm still not finished. That is by no means all, because BST has also discouraged many new editors (especially those from the Indian sub-continent) by making pedantic, condescending, and belittling criticisms of their early efforts, typically by using words like "utterly" and "whatsoever". For an example last year, see WP:BITE, which also highlights his lack of competence.

I'm not talking vandals there: it's about new editors who have made new editor mistakes (according to BST). Despite the fact that BST himself makes mistakes constantly to the extent that WP:CIR is a major issue where he is concerned. I have found, time and time again, that he cannot read or understand sources correctly, and he has frequently rendered false information, especially given his reliance on CricketArchive. I get the clear impression that he thinks: "If it isn't in CricketArchive, it never happened". That is absolutely irresponsible, to say the least.

Okay, I know some people will say that I have history, but I never ceased to try and produce good articles. Furthermore, I have behaved myself (ha!) for a whole year now—six months at Simple, and six months here since reinstatement. Make it about me if you want to, but the issue here is a person who is not only guilty of WP:CIR, etc., but also of being WP:NOTHERE. Someone who seeks to build and improve the encyclopaedia does not reduce useful, well-sourced start-class articles to useless unsourced stubs.

I mentioned the iceberg earlier. Please ping me if you want more instances. There's an enormous number of diffs I could quote. However, I think Talk:1755 English cricket season#Questions for User:Blue Square Thing says it all, really. I've had my say, and I will not write here again unless someone does ping me with a good question. Thank you for reading this, and enjoy the holiday if you're in GB, Jack (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

"A friend" told you that this person is going to edit after taking 6 months off? Why the hell is this on AN/I? --Onorem (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

BlackJack has a clear vendetta against BST, and has been undoing much of his work, even though much of it is valid. I have tried telling him to let sleeping dogs lie but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. BlackJack had himself been blocked for many years for disruptive editing so is really the last person who should be demanding that someone else is banned. I believe that it is no coincidence that BST stopped editing once BJ's block was lifted.

I would suggest an interaction ban between the 2 of them. Spike 'em (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would hold off on a two-way IBAN until BST could comment on it.

Also, I suggest looking at this editor interaction report. The overlap between these editors is huge - any IBAN would need to be clearly worded to establish the boundaries of it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I know it is huge. BJ seems to be systematically going through cricket (and other articles) that have been edited by BST and reverting to his preferred version. He had also created User:BlackJack/Complaints where he has documented a large number of talk page messages he had left for BST, none of which have been answered. He is clearly hounding BST. Spike 'em (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't that page be deleted? I cannot recall the specific rule or template, but I'm certain attack pages are against the rules, which unless I am mistaken, that qualifies as. — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC is the policy you are looking for. BilledMammal (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK and WP:HOUND. Spike 'em (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that removing a reference to your self-published cricket writings is not utterly incompetent, but an attempt at following WP:SPS. Spike 'em (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also be very uncomfortable with any block or sanction (or even a warning) based on things that haven't actually happened yet and may not even occur.

We have literally nothing to go off aside from aspersions and an admin post from two years ago. This is a pretty hostile post that verges into personal attacks, so I don't know why Jack thought it was a good idea to present it as evidence.

There are a lot of aspersions and allegations, but no proof of recent disruption (because there isn't any). Blue-Sonnet 16:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My question is who exactly is this 'administrator' who advised BlackJack to 'hold fire', whatever that means? Because when I contact an admin privately, if I got that advice I would probably disregard it because they're not here for the right reasons, nor should the ACS hold any power over anyone editing on en.wiki. This feels completely like BlackJack is using ANI as a check to WP:CHILL BST from ever coming back if they wish. I'm also reverting the edit Spike 'em pointed out because citing a personal BT Internet page is just the same as a GeoCities source in the US. I also feel the previous edit under the cover of 'improving citations' goes to an ACS archive site, which doesn't feel like an improvement but sneaky WP:PROMO to me for their club, and their article page is an unfiltered advertisement I usually see with day one AfD nomination candidates who blatantly use the site to advertise. There was a proper version of it before Christmas until an SPA named PeterHardy51 (talk · contribs) (no talk warnings) came around and added the PROMO text, and their only edits are to that page and the The Cricket Society. I have to wonder if BlackJack drove BST off the site in other venues, and then took their departure to try to get their way through subterfuge and now is trying to head off someone finding out about all of this. Nathannah • 📮 21:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Also BlackJack dropping all these allegations and then putting a 'gone fishin' header on their talk page for the next week (with a bonus additional PA against BST attacking their competence) looks absolutely ridiculous, as if they posted a vague Google Doc to Twitter with some accusations against someone and then after that went 'no comment'. If you're going to make an ANI thread BlackJack, the least you can do is be present to defend yourself after. Nathannah • 📮 22:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Throwing a grenade and running away is rarely a good way to achieve any result other than a WP:BOOMERANG, which this has the distinct scent of all over it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto - IDHT, harassment.

It is very unfortunate I find myself here. Unfortunately, this editors' behaviour has left me with little other choice than to bring this here. This editor was previously reported to AN\I for poor communication and conduct on article talk pages. A motion to INDEF was opposed, but a TBAN was mentioned by at least four editors (this was not acted on due to the topic area not being a CTOP).

This was approximately two months ago. After interacting with this editor at Talk:Angela Rayner tax scandal, I came across an older edit where they moved the article to a non-neutral title without first seeking consensus. There have also been other more recent issues involving this editor on article talk pages in the UK politics topic area of the project (1, 2, 3). These related to WP:NPOV on these articles and poor communication in article talk page discussions.

This led me to leaving a notice two days ago on their talk page. @CommunityNotesContributor quickly replied with more context on the third issue I raised. After this, the editor proceeded to continue to cast unfair allegations (bordering on WP:ASPERSIONS), along with demanding further "substantiation" of my original points, whilst accusing me of "misrepresentation", threatening escalation and deflecting the issue back onto me. I will also note that despite demanding further substantiation from me, they didn't do the same for @CNC. This shows they are not willing to follow the same rules they expect from others. I did not engage with this behaviour and the discussion ended without further reply.

A bit of time later, they posted to my talk page now accusing me of WP:NPA, which I quite clearly did not do at any point in time. I had previously said I am happy to talk, so long as the discussion was respectful. I closed this discussion and warned them not to WP:CROSS-POST. They ignored this and posted again anyway. I pinged an administrator and left a notice on their talk page to stop.

AN/I advises editors to discuss an issue with the editor first, which I attempted. I was unfortunately met with disrespectful allegations and harassment, as was @CNC. I don't believe this behaviour is acceptable and I don't think my colleagues on this project should have to put up with it any further either. I respect that @DeFacto has a long tenure with many of their previous sanctions lifted, that doesn't give them free reign to act in this manner now however. I propose a minimum of a 1RR restriction in the UK Politics topic area and a formal warning to drop the stick when asked to.

I will notify @DeFacto of this discussion on their talk page after posting this.

Note: I'm quite busy this month and so I may not be as active in discussion as I usually am. 11WB (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue here might be that 11WB has taken it upon themself to police conduct, and DeFacto has not played along. The interaction begins on DeFacto's talk page when 11WB templated for NPOV. DeFacto politely pushed back, and 11WB suggested a TBAN was incoming . Again DeFacto pushed back, and again, this all looks polite, but now we have accusations of BATTLEGROUND. DeFacto asks 11WB to substantiate the NPOV allegation, and 11WB, who started this all off with a template warning, says they are not willing to do so.

DeFacto then takes the matter to 11WB's page, but is strongly rebuffed and given a level 3 harassment template followed by an immediate opening of this ANI. At ANI, the conduct of the filer is under scrutiny as well as the editor reported. There is no new evidence here of any misconduct by DeFacto. DeFacto has remained polite, and has only sought to understand the issue. There is evidence that 11WB has taken it upon themself to act in a policing capacity, and they seem rather too ready with the templates, and not to understand that community warnings by non admins will be much more beneficial if they are applied in a friendly manner, offering guidance rather than threatening with sticks. I'd suggest 11WB be warned about this going forward. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Sirfurboy, you put it far more eloquently that I could of.

I was going to say similar, but with more details of the baseless allegations 11WB made against me at each step. I'll leave that for now though, as any interested party can look them up for themselves with the links provided by Sirfurboy above.

I was also going to say that I think this is an ill-advised attempt to try to use the power of this forum to influence the outcome of a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and wastes everyone's time and disrupts both the enjoyment of editing and the project as a whole for no constructive reason. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No problem. If I am asked to stop leaving conduct notices and to stop raising these issues when I see them, I will of course do so (I dislike confrontation, so this would be a good outcome). 11WB (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

user:~2026-30588-40

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

---

• ~2026-30588-40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They keep flinging personal attacks, and other general vileness on their talk page can someone please revoke TPA. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

User I dont like cricket I love it

I dont like cricket I love it (talk · contribs) This user has added an outdated name of a stadium and added factually incorrect information to the Premier League Cup (football) article and tried to maintain these issues . The links below lead to examples of him doing that:
False additions:
(The original addition)

Maintaining the issues:


(The edit summary threatened that Snowflake91 will be reported)




(This called Snowflake91's position "unsustainable")

Adding false information disguised as a cleanup:

The user also used obnoxious edit summaries. The following are the ones the user used:
Undid revision 1343710365 by Snowflake91 (talk) Continue top POV push and Edit war and you will be reported. Simply disliking the common name and choosing to push a sponsor name in violation of policies of Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you see an spelling error fix, do not use Wikipedia to make a point. Grow up this is not a children's playground.
Undid revision 1344020163 by Snowflake91 (talk) consider this the final warning before reporting, if you wish to keep the sponsored names in violation of Wikipedia policy the start a discussion, otherwise you are using Wikipedia to make a point and you have nit a red in the best interests of the encyclopedia but attacking spelling errors as opposed to correcting them. This is not Twitter
The user's edits were repeatedly reverted by Snowflake91, who also filed a DRN noticeboard report that failed to solve the issue. The user repeatedly denied there being a dispute and targeted personal attacks at Snowflake91. They also blamed Snowflake91 for issues that they are causing. I agreed, along with Robert McClenon, that an ANI report should be filed, which is what I am doing now. Robert McClenon, Nemov and Snowflake91, You may want to participate in this discussion. Thank you. — 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 21:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue was resolved by a WP:THIRD volunteer's opinion that we should use sponsored names if all reliable sources use that name, and the user in question said that they would not do any further edits regarding that apparently. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

finally after 2 months of edit warring Dani Bay (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Vandalizing by ch3rk.essk0

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

---

@Ch3rk.essk0 keeps vandalizing the Simsim by removing a map of Simsim used in history pages and by historians to the unofficial map of simsir. Moltenn9 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

What? All the maps you use are unofficial, including the Simsim map. The author isn't even clear and no sources are mentioned, I think you need to stop adding maps that arent accurate.. How does me using the most used map count as vandalism? Ch3rk.essk0 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ch3rk.essk0, that the maps are unreliable. One of them is from a forum, and the other was nominated for deletion on Commons by a seperate user. To be fair, I don't get the point behind edits such as this one, which seems to hijack an article, but the map removal is clearly not vandalism. Somepinkdude (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah about that one, It's just a naming system. First of all; the name "Atazhuko" is a wrong Russian translation of the original name "Hatokhshoqo", and Adil-Girey is also incorrect, its not necessarily wrong but the names that involve "Girey" turn into "Djeriy" in Circassian- For example; the name "Bakhty-Giray" would be "Batcheriy/Batdjeriy" in Circassian, its just for consistency with other Circassian articles Ch3rk.essk0 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• This seems like a content dispute that should be discussed more thoroughly at Talk:Simsim. Whether or not Ch3rk.essk0's edits are correct, they show no indication of being vandalism. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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

User talk:Mixed Messenger

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

---

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

Can an admin please revoke this User's Talk Page access as this User is abusing his own talk page while blocked Untamed1910 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

When you see stuff like this (mild disruption limited to the user's talkpage postblock), the best thing to do is to ignore it. See Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages for info on when it is appropriate to edit other users' talk pages. This stuff didn't raise to the level that you (and others) should delete it. The deletions just provoked more stuff, and probably was rewarding the user for their actions by providing them with attention. Revoking talk page access makes it very difficult to work with the user for unblock requests, as the UTRS is, frankly, an awkward system to use.

I'm going to leave it alone for right now, as it's mainly looking like blowing off steam in response to a block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Concur with rsjaffe. WP:DENY. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Maaaash---9

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

---

Please block Maaaash---9. They are almost certainly a sockpuppet of Vzno0000. AZenit3 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

They've been blocked, FYI you can usually get a quick response at WP:AIV if it's really clearly a puppet - ANI can sometimes take a few hours.

If it's not so clear, then WP:SPI is the way to go. Blue-Sonnet 01:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

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