Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Take 3: continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61

76.157.118.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who edits intermittently, has continued to make unsourced edits despite many warnings by me and others since May about this issue on their talk page. Here are the diffs of their latest unsourced edits: [1] [2]. I am requesting a block (or at least a partial block from the main namespace) to prevent damage to the encyclopedia's integrity by insertion of unsourced text. I have previously taken this to ANI twice but gotten no response; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1199 § Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1200 § Take 2: Continued unsourced edits after final warning by 76.157.118.61. Graham87 (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I second this. I've looked through a few dozen edits, all of them unsourced, and virtually all of them incorrect or unhelpful. A block seems to be in order. Woodroar (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I support a block as they keep making unsourced contributions despite multiple warnings to stop doing that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've just realised that out of their 132 edits so far, 87 are marked as reverted (see their edits tagged as such) or 66%. I don't think that's a particularly good statistic in this case. Graham87 (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Their latest edit is one more to add to their list of reverted edits, but that revert was about their unusual editorial style rather than the addition of unsourced content. FWIW I was OK with this recent edit of theirs, which is similar. Graham87 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week. This has been going on for long enough that I'm not confident that this will not simply continue afterwards, feel free to ping me if they do and I'll extend it, but I don't want to block an IP for longer as their first block, we'll see if this gets their attention. Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks very much! Graham87 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Block request for 76.157.118.61

Could an admin please take care of this? Most of 76.157.118.61's contributions have been reverted. (Even contributions without the "Reverted" tag are often reverted eventually.) Their only use of a Talk page was whatever this is, so they clearly know about Talk pages but refuse to use them. This has been going on for months now. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I 100% endorse this request. Graham87 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Support block given the ammount of unsourced contributions and lack of discussion on talk page. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Rusalkii has blocked for a week. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, again.

I've already flounced from WP entirely once over this exact situation. I am locked out of that account, this account is verified as a sock of that account. Just, somebody, please deal with Randy's apparent desire to own entire swathes of the project.

Randy re-created a template that there was a dispute over and re-added it to a lot of pages where it had previously been. This proposal was discussed on the talk page, and the parties involved didn't agree on it then (Diff). To be clear, I am not claiming there was consensus not to do this, but rather that a reasonable editor would conclude it's a controversial edit and maybe not one to just plow ahead with. I removed his fait accompli and took it to the talk page of the template where he'd discussed it. In response to the removals:

• "Stop reverting the Mars map, I'll just have to revert them all. This is a good way to get permibanned" (Diff)
• "Do you have any more socks? Valereee, please intervene here, this is over the line in many ways, thanks." (Diff)
• Accusing me of hounding and aspersions (Diff)
• Request for him to leave my talk page alone (Diff)
• More aspersions in response to that request (Diff)
• Six more edits to my verified sockmaster account after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page doing some weird song and dance about this (verified) account being suspect (History)
• More hounding accusations (Diff)
• Accusing me of deleting a page without discussion. Only pertinent here because he repeats this a lot and the discussion is literally above on the same page (Diff) (Diff) etc and this false narrative has derailed many discussions now
• Edit summaries were all accusations of edit warring in response to a "Take it to the talk page" edit summary (Diff)
• "has been much lessened since he began writing aspersions about my work on Wikipedia on an off-wiki site, seemingly attempting to smear my name and work with mud that just doesn't stick (but repeated enough times...)" (Diff)

All in about twelve hours. I asked him about a half dozen times to strike the comments, and several times told him to take me to ANI if he sincerely believes all of that. The offsite comments are we're both members of WPO and Randy feels this should be weaponized? This has been going on in some form for a year over this damn template. Please, for the sake of Martian articles, ban both of us from that template and the newer iteration Randy made and ban us from adding or removing it from articles, give us a long overdue IBAN, RFA the template so calmer eyes can decide, and take how much he exerts ownership of articles seriously. There's reports complaining about this behaviour across the project for years. This is an utterly exhausting environment to try to edit in good faith in.

And before a passing admin calls this a content dispute: I have no issue if someone wants to make a substantive argument for the inclusion of the template I changed, but Randy's response to a talk page discussion was

When you revert your edit war of something which has existed on Wikipedia since 2012 (or before?) then I'll read you concerns (Diff) This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a two-way IBAN is necessary. You two clearly don't play nice with each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

My last ANI filing was literally just me asking for a two way IBAN. My perspective on this is I'm getting harassed, hounded, and endlessly accused by an editor who believes themselves to be above Wikipedia policies on discussion. That Randy is so consistent with the aspersion in a talk page discussions leads to people presuming he probably isn't just making up garbage on the fly, which makes it impossible to engage with when. I really hope an admin is willing to take the time to read through the older discussion here and see the repeated attempts to engage him civilly being met with accusations of edit warring, vandalism (which he was warned about and doubled down on), and so on. This is not a case of two equally poorly behaved editors, and Randy's amazing ability to simply bald-faced lie his way through serious discussions (see the above accusations of deleting without discussion being dropped repeatedly as context into the discussion section) seems to fly far too often here. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on your talk page. That was enough to conclude that you two need to stop (or be stopped). I suggest you cease posting here before another admin blocks you for making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on your talk page.

Can you please read through the one that Randy has been insisting doesn't exist? Because that's sort of the important one to understand how we got here. That was weeks of asking him to engage, explaining with diffs why he was breaking pages in his refusal to read the discussion, dealing with accusations of vandalism, edit warring, etc. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the underlying content dispute. If you do not stop pressing this issue, which there was no consensus to sanction Randy for last time you were at ANI, you will likely be blocked for refusing to DROPTHESTICK. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That is an extremely uncalled for and, frankly, inappropriate threat. Nobody was asking you to weigh in on the content dispute. I am not sure where that accusation even came from. Editors have a right to have their cases read and taken seriously. An admin weighing in after reading a fraction of the problems and openly threatening a filer for civilly pointing out they missed evidence is poor form. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You returned to Wikipedia and picked up where you left off, predictably leading to another dispute with Randy, which you're now trying to use to get him sanctioned. My comment was not a threat; it was a prediction. Based on my experience seeing other editors engaging in similar behavior, I think it highly likely that another admin will block you for tendentious editing if you choose to continue down this path. RE Editors have a right to have their cases read and taken seriously: you did, the last time you brought the conduct surrounding this exact content dispute to ANI. As I said before, I don't need to read that content dispute to know that there should be an IBAN between you and Randy, which is precisely what you asked for. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Except that every single diff of concern here is for behaviour from today. There is no relitigation. If you would like to point out one, singular part of my behaviour that rises to the level of posting on an editors talk page seven times after being asked not to, threatening people with bans for a standard revert, accusing people of edit warring, wikihounding, and casting aspersions, and telling third parties that fantastical versions of events took place that simply never happened, then I will eat my hat and permanently get out of the hair of everyone on this project.

That I can deal with a mountain of abuse from one editor over a period of months, return here, instantly face more abuse, and I'm somehow equally at fault for calling this behaviour out because "Oh he's feuding with Randy again" when the feuding is so intensely one-sided that I brought it to ANI last time, and this time, to request an IBAN is crazy. Randy loves framing everything in these wild narratives where all parties are engaging with the same intensity he is, which is why over and over again at ANI I've asked admins to just verify his damn narrative even once.

And I was active on commons before this here, this wasn't me coming out of retirement to feud with Randy. I returned to Mars articles because I'm a Mars SME. It's where I edited extensively and I do use those articles a fair bit, so I see major changes to them. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the diffs are from the discussion on your talk page and one other discussion. You asked me to read the original discussion that sparked this entire conflict. The only reason I would do that is if I were going to sanction Randy for that conduct, which I'm not going to do because the community already rejected sanctions for that conduct. As for the current conduct, I read what you wrote and the thread on your talk page, and concluded an IBAN is necessary. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this will probably be much of the basis for my appeal when this closes as only an IBAN. I do not know how an admin can fairly weigh in on an issue when their approach to some threads of evidence is simply ignoring it because of what it's believed to contain. I was not asking you to weigh in on the content, I was asking you, and other admins, to explain what could have been done differently to avoid this situation getting to where it is now. Not on the content side, but on the open refusal to engage side. Randy never engaged with the content dispute by his own explicit admission, so trying to frame this as bad behaviour from two editors stemming from a content dispute is, respectfully, horseshit.

Now we have Randy explicitly openly refusing to read the discussions along with an admin! I do not know how you can determine there is a content dispute underlying all of this when you refuse to see the evidence one party isn't engaging at all. I do not see the point in asking for a reasoned and considered ANI filing then doing this to editors. Randy hasn't provided a single diff here, you're basing your entire judgement on, by your own admission, half-read evidence from one party in a dispute and a vibe check. Chew me out for not dropping the stick all you want, but this is atrocious behaviour from an admin who has voluntarily involved themselves. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was asking you, and other admins, to explain what could have been done differently to avoid this situation getting to where it is now. No, you did not. You asked me to read the thread [b]ecause that's sort of the important one to understand how we got here. What I am saying is that, right now, the issue is your and Randy's current conduct. What Randy did several months ago was already addressed at the last ANI thread. I'm unimpressed with both of your behavior right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Randy's current behaviour includes fantastical retellings of the events of the thread you were refusing to link, including going as far as to deny it existed as a core part of his argument

I'm unimpressed with both of your behavior right now.

I assure you the feeling is mutual. You're pretty far into looking for reasons to be pissed at me, and at this point you've got a few if you really want them. You've essentially ignored the content of the filing in favour of fixating on the timing of the edits. Cool, look into those. Sanction me for my bad behaviour. Admin or not, this is poor form from someone engaged in a discussion with lots of heat which could use a little light. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You came here asking for an IBAN. I obliged and proposed one. I'm not taking any administrative action here. The heat in this discussion is coming from your long, angry walls of text. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You’re not wrong. I’m exhausted. I am not responding well because this has been going on for such an absurd amount of time. Randy has basically openly harassed me since the start of all of this, but because there’s a technically somewhat interesting content dispute people haven’t bothered to look at the accusation fling in nearly every edit, nor the hear of civility that it took to get me to this point of burnout with this guy. Randy has always, every single time, changed his tone the seconds admins are around.

It’s happened time and time again, and almost every time there’s been a substantial ANI against Randy there’ve been editors coming forward highlighting years of his abusive WP:OWN issues.

I simply don’t mind anymore. Ive tried, in good faith, and constantly had a Randy gnashing out, chasing me to random wikiprojects, and fling shit. The evidence of the aspersions is clear as day, the evidence of bad faith engagement is clear as day. If people see my behaviour as unacceptable, then so be it. I disagree that much effort would have been applied to examining the evidence, but I really don’t think I expect better at this point.

Randy is the fourth long-term editor I’ve brought for sanctions in threads that have taken a similar arc of turning towards boomerang territory early. Much of that is my propensity for talking too much, but a hell of a lot of it is people thinking that it’s possible to understand a complex situation with a shotgun spray of diffs read. I do not see a reason to treat this process as serious right now, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the outcome.

It’s not like this community’s gloss read of the situation will last. I’m not the first person that Randy’s come up against like this, and I won’t be the last. Eventually he’s going make a mistake too big for the community to pretend not to see, and until then you are all free to think of this situation however you will. All I’ve wanted, for months now, was not to have to deal with Randy Kryn. Somehow, after appealing for a mutual IBAN and twice for an actual IBAN, and a half dozen random accusations, it’s me. Of course. The one who wants to stop dealing with this. Because there was content involved. Thanks, Wikipedia community. Lovely judgement. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You can always just move on, let it go, and focus on other areas of the project.... No one is holding you to re-engage in a situation you already know to be contentious. I suggest contributing elsewhere on Wikipedia, regardless of whether any IBAN is imposed. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Look, at the end of the day, it's possible to want nothing to do with someone and to disagree with their edits. Any other context and waiting a few months to just adding a ton of the controversial solution to one page, then complaining about reverts on the grounds of how many are reverted, is textbook WP:FAITACCOMPLI

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.

I disagreed and took it to the talk page, where right now there's a parallel discussion with someone broadly in Randy's camp that's been going just fine, because they're discussing. For some reason people seem to think I'm on the anti side of a content dispute, because, I presume, literacy is dead. Randy hit me with the barrage of aspersions above and continues to point to the number of edits that were reverted while still not talking about the content. The community appears unable to differentiate between a content dispute and a dispute where content is involved. Community's call, however it goes. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd really like it if people considered Randy's "oppose" in the context of him following me around the project so much that I've had to ask him if it's personal and I've been asking for a mutual, self-imposed IBAN for months. I do not understand why Randy insists on keeping an open line of communication to an editor who has made it repeatedly clear they don't want one, but I really hope it's clear from the talk page spree after being asked to leave me alone that this isn't normal. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

How did Randy reply to you asking if "it" was personal? Please add that diff, thanks. To tell the full truth, at that point I did not remember you and was wondering where the concern was coming from, and figured out that you were the Mars template guy who didn't like Drbogdan. No big deal, I thought, and then you have taken some kind of wiki vendetta about me to its heights, both on and off-wiki. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC) \

You're free to post whatever you think is ameliorating. I came away from that exchange on your talk page thinking we were good, so I'm not sure that we would have a different read on the result. What I'm trying to highlight is that I felt the need to ask you if it was personal in the first place. Admins: Considering Randy is still flinging accusations here, and the entire damn point of this ANI was him just lobbing constant accusations, maybe, I don't know, address it? There is clearly a behavioural issue from Randy in content disputes that goes just beyond us having an interpersonal issue here, and I'm far from the only person to run into Randy exerting ownership over pages. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'd appreciate any admin explaining to me how I should have handled this differently from the start. I made the change, took it to the talk page, solicited the feedback of a wikiproject for those changes, engaged with other editors, and have been open to being wrong since the start. It took months to do and Randy only chimed in after hundreds of replacements had been done, asking I undo everything before he'd acquiesce to reading the talk page discussion, which given subsequent edits meant hundreds of manual page edits. I stopped all editing the second he objected and took it to the talk page to work it out. In the meantime, he was breaking pages with careless reverts (Diff, note the navbox above the references). Legitimately, what was I supposed to have done differently here? Randy wasn't a party to any content discussions, he was a sidelined edit warrior communicating through aspersions in edit summaries. Completely sincere here: how should I have handled this differently to avoid these issues. Because it looks a lot like either "Just don't edit articles Randy edits" or "Randy's preferences take precedence over BRD" from where I'm sitting, especially with how keen people seem to be to limit the consideration to the overdue IBAN. I'm 100% sincere here and will take any feedback to heart. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think an iban means "don't edit articles the other person edits", that would leave too much to a runaway editor. Much of what you say above is incorrect but arguing with you is way too tedious for a human being, so I will activate my Randy AI. Hello Warren, good to meet you. Please revert your removal of the Mars template. RandyAI does not count hundreds of edits which had to be redone, this seems an exaggeration. Drink lots of water, be a good editor, and take an adequate amount of Vitamin C (at least 2,500 to 3,000 mgs a day divided between three or so time slots, morning, afternoon, eveniong). I will sign Randy's name here, as he is off somewhere uppercasing something or other, either that or not gone fishing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please revert your removal of the Mars template

Oh come on. Surely any admin can see how this bullshit will drive any sane, reasonable editor to madness when dragged out over a year? Randy clearly still believes it was reasonable to ask an editor to undo hundreds (yes, hundreds) of edits as a precondition of discussion. You were not entitled to demand I undo my edits. You were free to discuss them, and we are free to disagree like reasonable editors, but what you did was straight up say that you weren't going to participate until I had already done the things you wanted. No. Go away. If you want to have a voice, participate. If you don't want to participate, you don't get a voice. Your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine, here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I hope whoever closes this decides to touch on the diffs above, as the entire discussion has derailed with a content dispute. Regardless of any content dispute, I would expect to be sanctioned for the above behaviour. In this filing, Randy has thrown around several serious accusations. Not once, before or after, has he bothered to provide a single diff, instead declaring evidence too burdensome for the community. The community seems unconcerned by this fact. If it is determined the appropriate outcome for evidenced harassment, a year of stonewalling and WP:OWN behavior, edit warring, and attacking edit summaries is acceptable, then this community has decided its standards are capricious.

Here we have a massive thread with evidenced behavioral issues turning into a unilateral boomerang without a single person (unless I missed someone), including admins, commenting on the asepersions. This filing was not made in response to a content dispute, it was made in response to a dozen aspersions thrown in very short order, including repeated talk page harassment. Randy was given a specific threshold; if he kept trying to engage without striking any of his aspersions that were flowing freely, that I would take him to ANI. Here, the community has determined that the proximity to returning from a wikibreak to deal with a fait accompli is such an offence that Randy’s behaviour doesn’t even warrant a discussion.

There are times when it feels very easy to see through the veneers of bureaucratic language and all-caps rules we love so much and I’m instantly reminded that this place has far more in common with a Facebook group than I would like to admit, especially when it comes to intellectual honesty and rigour. I cannot be asked to believe what is happening here today is a reasonable, coherent outcome.

It requires an astounding level of cognitive dissonance to skip the entire line of evidence of harassment and jump straight to sanctioning the person whose solution provided an outcome where neither party would have any say in the content dispute. It takes an equal level of cognitive dissonance to look at a situation where one editor has asked for an IBAN for a year and the other repeatedly refused. I proposed banning myself from the template issues specifically to sidestep concerns I may be trying to win a contend dispute. The only way that can be read as an attempt to win a content dispute is if everyone believes that I believe I am do in the right that of left up to the community without Randy or I, “my version” would instantly “win”. That is not an assumption of good faith.

Several editors here have asked me why, if Randy was being so challenging to work with, I didn’t just do X, Y, or Z. Well, I did, basically every time. I followed every step I could for dispute resolution and still ended up with torrents of accusations in edit summaries and talk pages. The only thing I didn’t do was leave it alone, which apparently I should have. Why, pray tell, should I have left it alone? Because the editor I’m disagreeing with is so willing to go off the deep end to avoid discussion that it renders an area wholly uneditable? Because that’s the outcome when Randy is allowed to openly declare with an admin present that he will not engage in a discussion until edits he wants are done first, and none of you here can argue that is an acceptable approach to editing. Surely that is the standard we want to set for behavioural issues in content disputes: if there is a content dispute, the side that screams the most wins if the other doesn’t remove themselves from the situation. Excellent. Brilliant judgement, Wikipedians. You did it. You solved the problem. If this was a me issue we wouldn’t have a decade of similar issues reported with Randy. See you all at the appeal after Randy does this yet again to yet another topic, I suppose.

I reject any call that my return to remove the template was done in bad faith, while sidestepping any discussion of Randy’s blatant fait accompli. The primary behavioural evidence against me today, discounting any new ones since I decided speaking freely is worth more than consequences here, is that I returned from a wikibreak to remove a template from a large number of pages. The number is irrelevant, per WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and Randy’s edit was inappropriate to do unilaterally and without discussion when Randy already had reason to believe it would be contentious (again, per WP:FAITACCOMPLI), as the exact solution of creating a template as a new thing and adding it to the page was discussed previously. An entire line of the original filing was dedicated to making it clear that this exact thing that happens was previously discussed in April, and the amount of editors who seem to be rushing to explain that to each other in their sanction votes makes it pretty clear that people aren’t putting much effort into reading this. If some admins and editors here want to openly refuse to read the discussions that lead to this for fear of wading into a content dispute, then they miss the context of why the removal was appropriate. I cannot defend myself if people view the entire context of the action they want to judge me for as part of a content dispute they’re not going to read.

Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Addendum

Since filing this, Randy has made a lot of accusations and has backed up none. He has continued tossing around accusations but treats any evidence on his part as a burden for others he's saving them from:

• even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to (piling on) (Link)
• (I haven't provided any diffs, so as not to pile on) ([3])
• Much of what you say above is incorrect but arguing with you is way too tedious for a human being ([4])

Considering we have here an admin openly stating they won't read linked evidence, nobody has asked Randy for any diffs, and people are taking Randy's statements at face value no matter what evidence to the contrary I provide, I'm rapidly reminded of why I flounced the last time I asked admins to sincerely consider Randy's behaviour. The standards Randy is being held to here could not get any lower. We have him repeatedly lying about how interactions played out, misrepresenting which one of us dropped the stick first, and simply repeating the behaviour that got him dragged to ANI in the first place. The reason I brought him here is for almost a damn year Randy has responded instantly to edits he doesn't like with aspersions. I get he's mostly an unblockable but this is getting blatant.

It takes far less energy to tell a lie than to counteract it. If you don't want walls of text, maybe start responding to ANI filings by not fishing for how you can bean the filer at the same time so people don't feel they need to defend themselves from an impending boomerang. I don't care that you are all familiar with Randy's work, start looking at his beheviour. I haven't had a behavioural sanction once, a fact I suspect is about to change with this reply and Voort's itchy trigger finger, but if you're going to give Randy the benefit of the doubt as an unblockable, then at least extend the same courtesy to me as someone who has consistently identified long-term problematic editors and brought them to ANI only for the filing to look exactly like this. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I was blocked in April 2024, what are you talking about? Jeez, you have something going on with me and I venture it's much more than Wikipedia stuff. Hopefully you will not be blocked for anything you say about me, by any admin, your rants are probably ranted in good faith even if your need to insult me overrides how you normally behave (I don't know how that is, up until you came to my talk page to ask if I had a problem with you I didn't remember you from past discussions until reminded of a specific). What we have here is a failure to prove that your insults have any basis in fact, and a need to gather new diffs from this discussion to point to in your multi-site attempts to muddy my work on Wikipedia. Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy), and people who are willing to do deep dives are few, so how about easing up on those needs and get back to editing (have you edited anything else since you came back after months away to revert my 17 or so edits?). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy)

Worth remembering when discussing things with a bad faith editor who loves throwing accusations around but views evidence as too bothersome for others to deal with! Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: IBAN (Randy Kryn and Warrenmck a.k.a. Wikibreaksock)

Randy Kryn (talk · contribs) and Warrenmck (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Wikibreaksock (talk · contribs)) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

i agree with GLL. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, that's the easy way to stop conversation. Warren feels very strongly about me, expressed here and off wiki, almost all of it, in my opinion, imaginary, and if someone actually takes the time to read all of the cites and diffs above, not even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to (piling on), might understand why I think it's imaginary. But we should be able to talk about it as Wikipedians in a civilized way, not forcefully disconnected. At least someone could moderate a talk between us by asking questions and creating a substantial conversation. I can't understand much of what Warren is zapping at me for and he, me. Would be nice to have a third person asking the right questions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Whats your response to the hounding and harrassment allegations? 37.186.32.157 (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

By reverting my work with something like 17 reverts immediately upon coming back to Wikipedia, then when I reverted one of those was quickly reverted, Warren seems to be the one hounding and harassing. His first post upon returning today set the tone of his return. When I complained about the mass removals he continuously asked me to take him to ANI over these actions. I overstepped by answering him on his talk page when asked not to post there right in the midst of a discussion, and apologize for that, possibly my only WikiSin in this entire multiple-ANI overreach. In short, Warren returned and instantly reverted my edits after a semi-recent long period of continued mudslinging at me off-wiki, which I think is really low to do to a fellow Wikipedian, and then complains at my reaction. If anyone thinks he is the wronged one here then, in my opinion, they haven't yet dove into the diffs and discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

When I complained about the mass removals he continuously asked me to take him to ANI over these actions.

This is what I mean about Randy’s fantastical versions of events that get taken seriously for no reason. At no point did I ask him to take me to ANI over his edits. What I told him to take me to ANI for was these accusations he felt appropriate to lob since the second I made an edit he didn’t like. Now that it’s at ANI, he’s framing it as something completely different. Surely the admins have been around the block enough times to know when they’re being taken for a ride.

This is very similar to his oppose vote where he asks for a moderating voice to come between us to resolve the content dispute, but that exact thing already happened and Randy spent the time getting warned for aspersions and refusing to engage until the edits he wanted were done. Those threads are here and here. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree with Voorts that Randy took the bait, I think Warrenmk's behavior is the problem here. Warrenmk has been back on wiki for two days, and within 24-hours has filed an ANI complaint. Giving a 2-way ban would be rewarding shit stirring. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I think Warrenmk's behavior is the problem here.

Not one claim has been made about my behaviour, beyond some very nebulous claims which are, in fact, the reason this ANI filing is here. No diffs or evidence have been provided at any point for any behavioural claim against me. I would certainly appreciate it if you'd let me know what you found so convincing so I can make sure to address it. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Oppose Randy needs a cban at this point Joe Antifa (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

From an account with 4 edits who immediately jumps into a contentious topic. I have a feeling a CU will end up striking this argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Mars is called an enemy planet for a reason. Joe Antifa (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support It does seem like neither party is able to work well with the other. Simonm223 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  While obviously I agree with the IBAN, I think it needs to be paired with an enforced call for both of us to leave those templates alone considering the fait accompli. I’m happy to leave these templates alone, but I haven’t seen any evidence Randy is open to the possibility that his preferred version doesn’t stay. I’m perfectly willing to leave this whole thing up to uninvolved editors, permanently. I don’t believe my version is absolutely right, I just believe that a reasoned argument shouldn’t have to make room for an editor’s unarticulated preferences.

  I’d really appreciate it if an ANI filing of a behavioural issue where one side brings receipts and the other doesn’t bring any just get glossed as a dispute between editors and moved on from. Any editor with less name recognition than Randy would be instantly sanctioned for the behaviour evidenced here. Seeing as I’ve literally never faced a behavioural sanction at ANI, ever, I’m not sure why this is being mapped as two equally problematic editors, especially when one party isn’t even providing diffs for claims.

  Regardless of anything the template name shouldn’t be servicing as a shrine to an editor removed for promotional content, but I didn’t want to tag that issue as it may have looked like harassing Randy. This is a wikibreak sock, if you see me editing please yell at [[User:Warrenmck]] (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The name Drbogdan is used so people don't think I created the template (which is now named {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}), which was in most part Drbogdan's. You initially removed it without discussion and put a navbox under its long-time name, thus erasing the template, then reverted my attempts to return it. Not wanting to go into 3RR territory I asked you to return it, and walls of text ensued. I eventually let you get your way in keeping the navbox you replaced it with and then recreated it, which you agreed to, under this name a few months (not seven months as you claim) later. As for a iban, I don't know how that would work if we often edit the same topics and topic areas, does it mean just not mentioning the others name or addressing each other directly, and does countering the other's logic (or lack of logic) in a discussion break the iban. Would commenting on AfD's and ANI threads, that you often created under your Warrenmck name, break the ban? In the meantime, could an administrator revert the Mars feature map removals and return them to the many pages that Warren removed them from yesterday? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not wanting to go into 3RR territory I asked you to return it, and walls of text ensued

  I'm the one who stopped reverting before 3RR territory. The last reverts were yours after my second revert, which contained accusations in the edit summary (diff). I bowed out and took it to the talk page rather than 3RR it, which is why there are still live pages with the template you prefer (Viking 1). Seriously, why am I having to defend myself from an alternate version of reality? This straight up isn't how this situation played out at all. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  IBANs prevent you from doing the following: editing the other user's user and user talk pages, reply to them in discussions, ping them, make any direct or indirect reference to them anywhere on Wikipedia, undo their edits in any way, or thank them for edits. This is subject to the usual exceptions that clarification requests and appeals are allowed. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  undo their edits in any way

  Which is why this needs a restriction on us editing those templates. I am comfortable leaving it up to other editors. I hope Randy is as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support It has become abundantly clear that these two cannot collaborate productively, so this IBAN is needed to prevent further disruption. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Adding on some extended rationale: REAL_MOUSE_IRL put it perfectly below. On top of that, the arguments in this very thread show that neither editor can have a productive discussion with the other. However, I don't think either user's conduct rises to an indef. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see Randy's behavior here as problematic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks Bgsu98, a voice of reason. Voorts, I've never studied ibans. Since Warren and I often edit in the same topic areas (and he accused me of following him and I had to explain 'watchlists' to him), and I often comment at ANI and AfD, which Warren favors and was often found at, would simply commenting on or reverting one another's edits break the iban? I don't care if he addresses me, so I won't be complaining about him breaking an iban, so he has nothing to worry about there (not my style, he can "talk" to me all he wants about anything), but if an iban is placed I have the feeling he'll be watching me like two or more hawks to catch me if I slip up. The Mars template, on the other hand, deserves to be put back on the 17 or so pages that Warren removed it from yesterday, and I hope an admin can do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: Like I said above, reverts are covered by IBANs, as is commenting on them anywhere on the site. WP:IBAN has a full list of restricted activities, which I spelled out in an earlier reply. Hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks QuicoleJR, that seems very restrictive in my ability to counter incorrect statements or actions, so again I oppose an Iban. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  (and he accused me of following him and I had to explain 'watchlists' to him)

  The specific accusation was that Randy followed me to an unrelated wikiproject to talk smack following a disagreement on Mars edits (Diff). The previous hounding ANI was closed due to a flounce with a statement While there was merit in the original report. Randy appears pathologically incapable of presenting the facts of any prior case neutrally, and he has provided no diffs at all here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I did not follow you to "another wikiproject". I saw the change on my watchlist. Then commented where comment was needed. Your incorrect insults still come, and that is fine with me as well as neutral editors can follow up to find out who is correct and who is just trying their best to get another editor in trouble. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't take you to ANI twice, ask you for a self-imposed IBAN you rejected, and arrive at the conclusion that the outcome I want is one where the dispute we have is taken out of our hands, and ask you on your page if you had some personal issue with me that was causing you to follow me around the project being contrarian because I want to watch you "like two or more hawks". I very, very, very clearly want absolutely nothing to do with you on this project. That you have a propensity to exert ownership on articles in areas I edit in is why I asked admins to consider taking that issue seriously, but again it appears that your diffless mudlinging has won people over to the idea that you must have been acting civilly all along and this is just a breakdown in communication between editors, rather than this being some kind of weird protracted Randy-specific behaviour issue that has been commented on by editors time and time again. Treating this as a problem that can be solved with a mere IBAN is absurd, because I am very clearly not the only editor who has run up against pages you own.

  It isn't lost on me that you decided to recreate and re-add the template as a memorial to Drbogdan, after months of not even looking at this, within days of him trying canvass you in an ANU filing at commons that got him removed from that project, as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, again, simple language. I never have followed you. Do you still not understand watchlists? I added Drbogdan's name to assure that people didn't think I created the template, and to give credit where credit is due (see talk page at {{Drbogdan Mars feature map}}. If an iban is placed please make it one-way, as I have no objection to Warren commenting on-Wiki on anything I say or do. Just that he gets it wrong pretty close to 100% of the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You created that template on 11/9 (Diff). He tried canvassing you on Commons on on 11/5 (Diff). Before that you hadn't done anything with the Mars templates as far as I know since April. I don't think it's unreasonable to see a link there, but nor do I think that's anything wrong, rather it just strains credulity for you to pin everything to your watchlist. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's very weird to see a template named after a user, all the more so when it memorializes an editor who was booted for wasting the community's time. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  You shouldn't have gone to his talk page when this all started. You took the bait, and I don't foresee you not being able to take the bait going forward. That's why I think the IBAN should be two way. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good point Voorts. For taking bait I deserve a trout (the last fish I ever caught as a teenager was an alligator gar, and was so impressed by the majesty of it that it was thrown back and I never fished again). I'm not sure how to act in an iban if a major incorrectness comes up (such as the removal of all of the Mars feature templates from their pages which is still standing and, I believe, people are shying away from adding it back because of the noise level) and will, if it is applied and if I may, rely on you to guide me a bit if I come by to ask on your talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You took the bait

  Sorry, I would like to know why an admin is here implying I baited an editor for simply reverting their controversial changes and taking it to the talk page. Why am I being treated as a bad faith editor here? Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Even if an incorrect assumption you must admit that your actions can be read out as baiting me by, with your very first mainspace edits after coming back on Wikipedia after rage quitting, reverting 17 or so of my edits (I haven't counted them), and I fell for it. My fault. I don't know what you're talking about the good doctor pinging me from Commons, that's his right. If that had something to do with me remembering to recreate his template, and I can't recall if it did or not (I've been meaning to recreate it for a few months), so what? Drbogdan is not the boogeyman, and is missed by some (me) for his many good science edits (he has over 90,000 edits with a very low reversal rate, and hopefully he makes it back on-wiki the next time he requests that his ban be lifted). But naming the template afterh him is, as I repeated, to give credit where good credit is due. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban sanctioned on Warrenmck. These antics appear to be persistent, tendentious editing with a clear focus on dragging Randy through the mud. I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren, much to little or no avail in their crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I by no means think we should bar editors from editing a template over such pettiness, and would hope Warren would have taken a step back rather than instigating this situation further upon their return, but I digress. It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren

  No. Absolutely fucking not. I will eat a site ban rather than let this one stand. I have, for months, asked randy to either engage in a content discussion or disengage entirely. I provided a diff here of him saying "no" in response to a request that he engage in discussion. Here's a diff for you: Diff. That's why I've asked people to read the discussion thread that started all this. He has responded by accusing me of things nonstop the second we interacted, which he has been warned about before. Find me an instance of Randy trying to engage with me and me bowing out, and I'll eat my hat. Seriously.

  It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute

  The sanction I asked for for Randy, an IBAN and a ban from editing on those templates, I also asked for for myself. I have asked for no sanction for Randy I am not also fully willing to take myself. I am only objecting to an IBAN in a vacuum because I do not feel it will solve these issues entirely. Beyond that, Strebe came in agreeing with Randy:

  I think the article is better with the content, whatever its flaws; I do no see it in violation of any policy; and, while objections ought to be respected and debated, the bias needs to be toward keeping useful content, not deleting it on debatable technicalities. Finding ways to improve the content would be much better.

  My reply to that:

  all along my only point of contention has been that changes be made with discussion, not by fiat. Feel free to act as a third party here. My proposal above was that if this content must be displayed that this image be used instead with links in the description. That solves the formatting and accessibility issues, keeps the same content, and is far more readable.

  Emphasis added. Why would someone unyielding in a content dispute invite a third party who openly disagrees with their stance in advance to weigh in as a third party? Because I am acting in good faith, and don't own the page. Why would my entire ask at this ANI be "take this out of both of our hands" if I was so invested in the outcome? Randy's constant unevidenced horseshit has convinced people that there's a deeper dispute around the substance of this than there actually is. I have zero issue with being in the wrong on the content dispute. Hell, there was another image map dispute Randy and I were in and I ended up finding his stance convincing and changing my mind. My issue is, and has always been, that Randy has never once engaged in the content dispute except to insist it be changed back. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The thing which I don't understand is this. If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute, why didn't you just do what we should all do in such situations and build a consensus without them? If the community came to a consensus that your version was better, Randy's view would be largely irrelevant even if they had sufficiently engaged. Ultimately trying to decide whether one or both editors have discussed "enough" is always tricky & arguably a bit pointless in the these disputes. Instead the solution is for these two editors to stop just arguing among themselves and definitely no edit warring and instead use some form of WP:dispute resolution to get more feedback to resolve the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  The thing which I don't understand is this. If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute, why didn't you just do what we should all do in such situations and build a consensus without them?

  I literally had been. You can find me engaging with other editors who share Randy's perspective and not shutting them down, because I've been wrong about imagemaps before and again, I don't own this place. The problem was that Randy objected to anything being done to the templates without his approval, but he was refusing to engage directly with the process unless an admin was asking him questions. Feel free to read through the thread above; Randy was a one trick pony only content if the templates were reverted as a prelude to any discussion. I even posted about the issue on the Mars Task Force page to elicit more feedback from other editors. I'm seriously hitting a wall with people accusing me of trying to win a content dispute this way after how much effort I've put into this damn situation to do everything the right way.

  That's why I'm clearly going mad at the tail end of this ANI: as far as I can tell, what I'm being told I should have done is exactly what I did. Randy's complete stonewalling of the entire process simply meant nothing could get done. When it was clear there wasn't going to be a consensus process because of all of this, I left it alone for five months hoping that other editors would get to it instead. I only came back to that topic when Randy clearly felt enough time had passed for him to just unilaterally dump the old templates back as a fait accompli, bypassing any need for discussion. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I actually want to quickly address something I missed on my first read:

  If you felt Randy wasn't sufficiently engaging in the content dispute

  I want to be very clear I'm not just accusing Randy. Randy explictly stated he would not engage in the discussion section of the template page until the changes he wanted were enacted. This is from the wider consensus building discussion you asked about at the Mars Task Force:

  When you objected I completely ceased all editing and raised it here, which leaves me with a slew of semi-fixed articles to address which are being left alone right now for zero reason you've been willing to articulate. I'm not sure what more I can do, here, because you're just demanding I do what you say and accusing me of all kinds of malfeasance for saying "Not without a reason."

  Randy's reply:

  tltr , when you revert back to the long-term template (since 2012) I'll read your post.

  I think there's a difference between "I do not think this person is discussing this sufficiently" and an open refusal to engage. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're still missing the point. Were you able to build a clear consensus for your edits? If yes, then Randy's objections were completely & utterly irrelevant. If you failed to, then I guess your edits lack sufficient support and you needed to cease making them and definitely not edit warring over them. Even more if you came back to edit war over them after a long break. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also while I don't think Randy demanding reversion before they would discuss is right, it was also utterly ridiculous that you refused the request since WP:BRD and WP:Status quo does support returning to the version before your bold edits, as it would be the end result if you could not achieve consensus for some change (again with or without Randy's participation). Ultimately I don't understand why one of you couldn't just be the better editor and do what's right for Wikipedia instead of demanding you get your own way. Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please keep in mind Randy objected multiple months into the process, and at that point changing the template back would stick a fixed-width image map into the navigation section of the pages. That was laterally my only objection to the revert per BRD, which I did explain there. Reverting it to Randy's preferred state would have been several hundred edits to get everything back to a prior state. I was, and always have been, willing to do that, but I wanted something more than "I liked it put it back". As for consensus, we had multiple editors comment on the temperature being too high to want to weigh in. That's one reason I left it completely alone for five months. My solution wasn't "Plow ahead anyways and piss off Randy", it was to leave it alone completely and hope other editors weighed in. Randy's solution was to plow ahead with a solution that had already been discussed as controversial. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have used "compromise" or "communicate" rather than "collaborate", but it goes both ways in any dispute. Warren, from my outside perspective, it appears Randy opposed something, you opposed their opposition and escalated a known issue further. That is on you for perpetuating this issue. Also, nitpicking every response is not really going to help your case here... — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  it appears Randy opposed something, you opposed their opposition and escalated a known issue further

  Randy weighed in on the tail end of months of effort to clean up that template on a bunch of pages. He objected to it and immediately started reverting everything in a way that broke pages. When he objected, I froze all editing and took it to the talk page and tried to understand his perspective. Randy's stance was that he wouldn't even read the conversation until I undid the aforementioned months of work first (Diff). There are diffs for all of these claims. Again, I stopped all editing and took it to the talk page. I didn't even finish the editing process as Randy was objecting still and I didn't want to plow over his work. That's why I reverted his fait accompli; the articles had been left in a frozen state of that dispute, and I didn't touch it for months despite being active on the project in hopes that other editors would see it and take over.

  To repeat, what I was supposed to do differently? I paused all editing, took it to the talk page, engaged the user in question, never just continued ahead without consensus despite his objections even now months later. In that time Randy was actively breaking pages with his reverts, accusing me of vandalism in edit summaries, and misrepresented his own and my behaviour routinely the second it came time for scrutiny. I'm responding to every little thing here because people seem hellbent on interpreting this as an interpersonal dispute between two users and not a massive WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALL case. Above, you say

  It is clear to me that Warren is not going to let this one go and is intent on getting Randy sanctioned because they disagree on a content dispute

  I'd already let it go for the better part of the year. I am not the editor who came back to a stale discussion and attempted to fait accompli it. I have already asked someone who agrees with randy to be our neutral third party. On what planet am I trying to game a content dispute? Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  To state the obvious if the pages were broken but you did not have consensus for your version, the simplest solution instead of coming back to edit warring was to come back and finally fulfil Randy's request to revert to the non-broken but disliked by you older version. Then maybe there would finally be discussion and perhaps there would be chance for improvement. Hopefully Randy would finally have participated although either way, as I said above it's irrelevant. If Randy's behaviour ever came under future review, their refusal to discuss until reversion may come under great scrutiny. Instead we're here not because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it. Just to re-iterate, if you only wanted to fix the broken stuff you could have reverted to the version before it all began when it was not broken in 2012 or whatever. (If there were some changes in code, articles names etc since then, it would be fine to fix this provided you returned as far as possible to the version before the whole stupid mess begun.) I'd note also you seem to be proving here that in at least one way Randy was better than you. Despite wanting a complete return to the older version they let it all stay as it was broken or frozen or whatever in that time instead of taking the chance to go back when you had left. It was you who came back and decided to use the chance to instead try to force through you preferred version before you obtained consensus instead of either returning it to the old version Randy preferred or just letting it be like Randy had and let wait until someone else eventually decided to deal with the mess you both created by both of you being so recalcitrant. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Randy's preferred version introduces accessibility issues, which Randy hadn't touched on. In the absence for any articulated reason for wanting that version back beyond personal preference, it's worth leaving the WP:ACCESS-compliant version live.

  Instead we're here not because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it. Just to re-iterate

  Again, what Randy did was explicitly talked about on the talk pages. These templates break page rendering and introduce accessibility issues.

  instead try to force through you preferred version before you obtained consensus instead of either returning it to the old version Randy preferred

  Look, I'm not going to twist myself in knots apologizing for removing accessibility-breaking content being readded by an edit warring editor who refused to engage in the discussion around edits he wanted. If any other editor had simply waited out a controversial edit they wanted then attempted to add it to a bunch of pages, we'd correctly map that as poor form. Add accessibility and rendering issues on top of it, and we have specific policy reasons for the status quo to wait to see if that template is sufficiently important to justify breaking accessibility. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry I meant" Instead we're here because you didn't do that but decided once again your version was clearly better despite there being no consensus for it" Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Are we? Or are we here because Randy thought his version was better and tried to fait accompli it and then launched a torrent of aspersions? Because I seem to recall the whole thing with the template happening in parallel to me repeatedly asking him to strike the aspersions, which he just kept bringing over and over. Seriously, this ANI has become a farce as every editor has decided to fixate on the content dispute and insist that's the issue despite a big ol pile of diffs above everyone's elected to ignore. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Like, to be clear, this filing wasn’t because of the template dispute (though I think it’s impossible to fully separate) but rather that Randy was casting endless aspersions between edit summaries and talk pages. I asked him repeatedly to stop, he didn’t, I gave him multiple off-ramps, he kept going. I asked him one last time to strike the aspersions before continuing to respond to everything I say or I’d take it to ANI, he didn’t, and here we are. The issue is the damn behaviour! 77.250.143.134 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  This was me (logged out), sorry! Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I suggest Randy and Warren/Wikibreaksock refrain from commenting further unless asked a question by an uninvolved party. This back-and-forth is bloating the thread without adding much clarity. Remember: you're trying to convince the community, not each other. It's okay to let the other person be wrong; uninvolved editors can suss out the fact from the fiction. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Look, at this point I've provided a fair amount of evidence and randy hasn't put forward a single diff. Immediately above you we have an editor saying I find that Randy has been attempting to collaborate with Warren when there are diffs of Randy explicitly saying he won't engage with BRD in this thread. I don't think I'll be able to convince the community of anything, at this point, because I can't compete with literally providing no evidence and being taken seriously for some absurd reason. This filing has successfully disabused me of the notion of Wikipedia as a serious part of the internet. Important, yes. Definitely self important. But not serious. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose 2-way Soft support 1-way imposed on Warrenmck. I understand the desire for a 2-way I-ban but I can't convince myself it's the right solution with how this has played out. RK is being RK and that's nothing new. But Warren's first edit to a content-oriented space since their break started was to immediately re-engage with RK, and that just reeks of an inability/unwillingness to just avoid RK and edit elsewhere. It also makes their volunteering to a two-way IBAN confusing at best. This could have been a SNOW two-way IBAN on these editors if this dispute had started any way but Warren coming back right where they left off like a heat-seaking missile. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  It also makes their volunteering to a two-way IBAN confusing at best.

  This is my third request for an IBAN, and second formal one at ANI. I have asked Randy to voluntarily have an IBAN. The problem here is Randy just fait accompli'd something he'd disengaged from a while back, in a way that's extremely obvious if you spend any time on the pages in question. So the reason I asked for an IBAN is because of how we got to this place, not because of the template. The request for the IBAN is because randy decided to engage via the edit summaries of disputed content with aspersions while explicitly saying he wasn't going to engage in the discussion. If Randy isn't going to talk to me, I'd prefer it if he isn't oversighting my edits while doing so. I have literally no interest in continuing to interact with him on this site, just literally the primary reason I am here is Mars articles, which he's puppy guarding in places. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the record at time of writing, this thread has ~56 posts (not counting this one) and of those, you have posted 25 of them, or about 45% and RK has made 12. I think it's time for other voices to have a chance to contribute before this bloats to a size nobody will want to read. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Soft support 1-way imposed on Warrenmck. [...] RK is being RK and that's nothing new

  Geez, I know I'm new here (I've been lurking on ANI for a while, though), but I was seriously about to create an account to help edit some articles here and there. Now I'm definitely not going to, because--at least from the perspective of an outsider--trying to explain yourself with diffs is considered WP:BLUDGEON, but an editor that literally said not even counting any diffs I could provide but choose not to gets a free pass for reasons unknown to me (maybe they're well known? Maybe it's because they posted only a few replies, including an extremely sarcastic one when replying to the person who started this thread?).

  I'm sorry if this comes off as rude, but to me this quite literally can be read as "Warren is in the wrong because, after taking a break, they engaged with Randy instead of letting Randy do whatever they wanted, and so Warren must be banned for it".

  Best of luck to all of you. I still greatly respect Wikipedia, but I never want to be part of it.

  2804:D41:A7B2:4300:F3:2BA0:68B2:ED18 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  While I share your read of this situation entirely, I think making this your first edit is going to result in accusations of me socking, and may harm more than it helps. There appears to be a serious appetite to see me as exclusively engaging in bad faith, despite my attempts at disclosure. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support at least a 1 way stopping Warrenmck from interacting with Randy both editors clearly have major problems here but I'm convinced at least Warrenmck needs to be stopped from interacting with Randy since as demonstrated above, they simply cannot accept any possible fault in the way they've interacted with Randy nor even accept that they ultimately need consensus for their changes with or without Randy. It's extremely tiresome when an editor insists they're right but is unwilling to prove it and this seems to apply to both of them. But at least Randy was willing to let it go but Warrenmck came back after a long break & one of the first things they did was to again insist they're right while still lacking any consensus & refuses to back down from that. If you're so clearly right on the issues (whether accessibility or whatever) you should have no problem achieving consensus for that before you resume an edit war so there is zero reason to be recalcitrant on seeking it first when you know there is dispute. It makes even less sense if the problems have existed for months so a few more weeks while you seek consensus is not a big deal. To be clear, I'm not opposed to an iban to stop Randy from interacting with Warrenmck just not so certain it's needed.Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to add that the obvious solution if one party preferred the map and the other preferred the text template was to keep them both. Each party then gets to work on their preferred variant to their hearts content without needing to come into conflict. Once each had developed their best variant, they could then try to convince the community whether to have one of them or both in articles. If as it turns out the community only wanted one specific one in all articles where they would be relevant, it's likely the unused variant would be deleted or perhaps kept only for attribution history or as a user sub page. The discussion shows for all the flaws in their engagement style, Randy did propose this option more or less. For whatever reason Warrenmck refuses but instead continued to insist they were right without having achieved consensus on this. When again, if they were indeed so clearly right it should have been trivial to follow Randy's suggestion and then let Randy spend their time on their preferred version only to have it rejected by the community because Warrenmck was right. Let me re-iterate, if you're so clearly right the way to "win" at ANI is not to come here & try to prove you would have been able to achieve consensus if only XYZ had happened. But instead come here & show you did achieve consensus but were ignored. (Or better, don't come to ANI because the other editor accepted the result once you did have consensus.) Without consensus both of you have failed at dispute resolution & also to re-iterate no single editor can stop consensus from forming. Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  That solution was not technically feasible. The navbox had been placed at the bottom of the page with other navboxes. To revert the code in the navbox to the image map, you’d suddenly have an interactive map of mars out of place in the navigation section of pages, between other navboxes. Mass reverting would involve a substantial number of pages and a substantial number of interstitial edits as it had been going on for months. Again, I always said I was willing to do the work to revert it to the previous state, just not for the stated reason of “it was there a long time”. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Sorry looking a bit more it looks like Randy did actually recently create a template with their preferred variant recently and add it to articles and this seems to have been what set Warrenmck off. Still this didn't have to concern Warrenmck since they didn't remove Warrenmck's version. Instead they seem to have tried to finally advance the dispute by ensuring both versions existed and so the community could judge whether they wanted one or both. Warrenmck could have used this chance to come back and work fixing whatever they felt was broken in their variant of the template while leaving Randy's version alone. Instead they came back just to revert Randy's version. Since Warrenmck was so sure Randy's version had clear problems, there was no reason for this. Consensus is surely obvious and simple. Let Randy finish their variant, Warrenmck can fix whatever they think needs to be fixed in their variant and as I said above, put them both to the community and achieve this simple consensus that Randy's version is unwanted Warrenmck feels should exist. But this isn't what happened. So not quite what I said above but still showing an unwillingness on the part of Warrenmck to leave Randy alone and let the community decide if they're right on the alleged problems with Randy's template/map. Randy OTOH for all their flaws did seem to be willing to just leave Warrenmck's version well alone. (Not surprising, I don't think Randy minds Warrenmck's version co-existing in articles, so it's more a matter of whether Randy's originalish version is still needed or wanted.) BTW the claim that Randy never gave a reason why they liked the map isn't true since they said this [5]. Again not defending Randy refusing to comment before reversion or to engage with Warrenmck or say this was sufficient explanation but they did at least say something. (I don't think they ever got back however, either they forgot or have up with other disputes.) Ultimately the more I look into this the more I see the typical frankly childish nyah nyah I'm right and you're wrong from both editors when a content dispute arises largely involving two editors. Rather than any real attempt to engage the wider community & achieve consensus and prove they're right which I'll re-iterate for the last time, should be trivial if you're really right. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Instead they seem to have tried to finally advance the dispute by ensuring both versions existed

  this exact proposal, with a duplicate of the template added, was discussed. This is mentioned in the filing. Randy knew it would be controversial, and did it en masse anyways. This is the definition of WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Randy is still fixating on the fact that I removed ~16 of the templates as if the number changed that he unilaterally added changed the appropriate response in BRD.

  Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change.

  emphasis added Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 1-way IBAN (Warrenmck from Randy) - What I'm mostly seeing brings to mind this comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This is looking more like harassment from Warren, while Randy is attempting to act in good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support two-way. The issue isn't simply one-sided. That's with me thinking both of these people are digging their heels in over simply wanting to be right. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN of Randy Kryn from Warrenmck and their sockpuppet. They have demonstrated that they are disrupting the encyclopedia with their campaign against Randy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose a two-way IBAN. I have not seen a solid case that Randy is harassing or counter-harassing Warren, but I have seen that Warren is harassing Randy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support two-way - Having now spent a non-insignificant amount of time trying to follow the series of events, I'll say that, while Warren's behavior here has been sub-optimal to say the least, this is not a 1-sided issue & Randy's behavior has also been rather disappointing. They've repeatedly been dismissive of issues & have cast several aspersions in the process, both here & on the article Talk page. This definitely played a factor towards this spiral of non-collaboration between these two editors.
  I will also note that Warren seems to be collaborating fine with other editors on the same article talk page, so it's apparent that Warren can be a productive editor, but Randy & Warren can't edit together. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
• What the hell is happening here? I normally wouldn't wade into this, but it sort of touches on apparent cleanup of Drbogdan's prolific creation of bad templates, bad editing, etc., which is something I've kept a bit of an eye on. As for the content, this looks like cleanup work of Warren in that regard. As far as I can see, Warren did everything right here, and only months later did Randy come back, make a copy of the template at a completely inappropriate title (referencing a specific WP editor's username), and then change every transclusion to that one re-add it back to every (?) article which originally had it. That is utterly unacceptable behavior and shouldn't be tolerated. Warren's frustrations seem kind of understandable given the apparent hounding of his work (has there been any explanation of how Randy came to find this, and then tried to sneak the old one back in months later?). I just don't understand the piling on of Warren here and apparent disregard of Randy's own bad acts -- not just the template thing, but all the rest, like insinuating Warren might have more sock accounts, etc. I don't have any concrete suggestions for what should be done here, but I don't think this is getting looked at in the right way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  "Change"? I was wondering if I was missing something again although was surprised since both sides seemed to be saying the map was re-added which Randy wanted and was fine with it co-existing with the template, but Warren did not. I had a quick check of WarrenMCK's reversions e.g. [6] [7] [8] and all of them seem to be the same thing just reverting the addition of the map rather than reverting to a version with the other template. It's possible some of these pages did not have the template but I'm not seeing evidence Randy is responsible for that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Sorry, you're right of course. I misspoke or mis-saw the diff or something; I've edited my comment to reflect that. However, I still think that doesn't really change much about what's going on. This may in fact be spillover from Randy's minority dissent from sanctions being levied against Drbogdan at ANI, and which Warren was the one who actually opened the thread (see comment here). Something about all of this really stinks, and to place all the blame at Warren's feet is really not a good look here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t think it matters. You instantly saw what I saw, because you’re familiar with Drbogdan and why his editing is so intensely important to this discussion. It’s apparent that most people here can’t even be assed to notice the constant harassments, hounding, aspersions, and then the tidal wave turns against an editor who has spent months trying to engage Randy to get him to discuss this.

  the underlying issue, one which will certainly sound like an aspersion, is Randy doesn’t want Drbogdan’s work being removed. That’s it. That’s what this is about. That’s what this has been about for over a year, and that’s why Randy went on a template spree with an inappropriately named template right when Drbogdan got CBANned from commons. The only editor trying to hammer a content dispute here is Randy, but because I was inactive off the site apparently WP:FAITACCOMPLI, abusive edit summaries, and constant aspersions are not only acceptable, but they’re so much more acceptable than this filing that there’s apparently no need for anyone to address any concern for which a diff was provided here.

  Randy even told on himself here:

  Mud does stick when repeated enough (a proven psychological ploy)

  I’m not flouncing here, but I’ll be surprised if I ever substantially edit again on Mars topics. Randy has won, by virtue of ANI being too goddamn lazy for anything even slightly complex. Again. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  That’s literally exactly what this is. There’s a subpage on my old account with the Martian articles Drbogdan had ruined with his editing, and this conflict with Randy stems from that. He’s still here in this very filing defending Drbogdan’s work as very good when it literally got him banned from the project. Drbogdan was just indeffed from commons and appears from the timing to have made this as a memorial to Drbogdan, considering after about six months he suddenly decided to do this at the exact same time as the ANU filing. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• INDEF Warren, caveat, potentially involved as closer of first ANI. You don't get to say you've flounced because of another editor's conduct when you came back to pick up the exact same debate. Randy can be idiosyncratic, but they don't appear to be the primary problem here. If you're unable to drop the stick, Warren, it may need to be dropped for you. A one-way IBAN would be fine, but I don't think it will be sufficient. Star Mississippi 01:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  At this point I sincerely and profoundly do not care if this is the outcome. My respect for this process (though again, I’ll respect the result) has dropped to zero. Repeatedly, Randy’s behavior escapes all scrutiny because of his ability to switch tone when facing scrutiny. I didn’t file this ANI in response to edits, I filed it in response to behaviours and gave him a half dozen opportunities to strike his aspersions and that if he continued I’d bring him here. He continued, I brought him here. The community today appears to be concluding that there is no permissible context in which a returning editor can file an ANI regardless of what behavior elcificted it, because in tens of thousands of words almost nothing has been said about the aspersions-per-post machine gun spread of Randy losing his goddamn mind at me. The level of bureaucratic rot it takes to get to this place is surprisingly intense.

  Indef me all you want, I’ll save an appeal for when Randy finally pisses off the community in a way that can’t be ignored. Which, frankly, I would have thought openly and explicitly not reading a discussion thread until editors acquiesce to your version was. Maybe my standards have been too high. It’s hardly like there’s much point in editing Mars articles if Randy owns them. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support over a 1-way IBAN.

  With all due respect, if this community can’t be assed to figure out who is harassing who in a year-long spat where one party is has been casting aspersions and straight up lying in discussion, and the other is actually bringing diffs and can point to months of specific attempts to engage civilly, requests for an IBAN, as well as repeated warnings to stop lobbing accusations in edit summaries and talk pages and six edits to a user talk page after being asked not to (harassment by any definition), then this community has lost the plot. Entirely. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• One-way IBAN for Warren. The key observation, made by GabberFlasted above, is Warren's first edit to a content-oriented space since their break started was to immediately re-engage with RK, and that just reeks of an inability/unwillingness to just avoid RK and edit elsewhere. EEng 04:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sincerely curious why me removing this is seen as inappropriate but not the fait accompli addition of templates which had already been discussed and Randy knew was controversial? I’m not aware of any rule that editors are not allowed to return from breaks to undo specific edits which were already contentious. I am aware of rules against the above diffs, and fait accompli. I was already highly active on Commons when Randy made the changes. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 07:53, 24 September 225 (UTC)

Oppose two way; support one way Iban for Warrenmck per EEng and PositivelyUncertain. Per Star Mississippi I support a block for Warrenmck on account of their walls-of-text trolling, bludgeoning this very thread and general inability to drop the stick. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Support one way for Warrenmc, oppose two way per PositivelyUncertain above. Springee (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Having read this discussion, as well as old discussions here and at Commons, I think Warrenmck identified the root problem correctly: the underlying issue, one which will certainly sound like an aspersion, is Randy doesn’t want Drbogdan’s work being removed. That’s it. That’s what this is about. (And as of a few days ago at Commons, Drbogdan was still writing in exactly the way called out as quite frustrating in the ANI close.) This looks like the latest stage in a saga of bad blood. I don't think that Warrenmck should be indeffed from the project because of it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  So this is a hyper escalated content dispute? 37.186.32.157 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it started as a content dispute (about superficial material in science articles and such), and then it became a conduct issue, and now participants in that dispute are blowing up again. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-way I think Warren has done a pretty good job in this thread of showing that he can't edit with Randy; what's more unfortunate is the way he's obscured the issues. Warren has in fact edited outside of the Randy topic areas [9][10][11]- they came back under an account to deal with copyright violations uploaded by Drbogdan to Commons[12]. During the Commons AN/U (trans. "AN/I") that resulted in Drbogdan's ban,[13] Drbogdan tried to canvass Randy to his side;[14] Randy didn't respond, but within about a week of the ping, started restoring Drbogdan's old material on enWiki,[15] material he knew Warren objected to. To be clear, I don't have enough direct evidence to state without a shadow of a doubt that Randy is proxying poor-quality content on the behalf of a cbanned user, but that kind of behaviour did come up in the last AN/I thread about Drbogdan[16]. I don't think this will get better if there's a one-way iban. Also, posts like this[17] show that the issue is pretty two-sided. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify, since Randy asked me to strike my good faith aspersion[18] - I presented diffs that showed how you created a template named after a banned editor, very soon after they pinged you for help. Maybe my interpretation of that isn't correct, but ah well; the universe will someday get over its complete lack of astonishment that I'm sometimes wrong.

  What I don't need to be wrong about, however, is that after I made my above comment Randy went back to the Mars Features template talkpage to ping Warren[19] to say we can still talk until that "gotcha" ANI thing ends. Which... okay, I'm very bad with people. And social interactions. And even I'm looking at that post going "this guy has completely backed off the discussion on the talkpage, repeatedly asked for a two-way iban, why on earth can't you just leave it?" Again, oppose one way, re-affirm support for two-way because both parties seem incapable of not baiting the other. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  It’s almost like there was something to my hounding and harassment claims! I think you briefly saw what I’ve been repeatedly dealing with in real time. I even asked him if he had a personal issue with me back in April. I genuinely don’t know where I’ve goaded Randy here unless you’re talking about the revert, which several other editors here had a read of the edit being unacceptable as well. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Support 2-way As far as I can tell, the problem here is going both ways. And per GLL, if one party may be proxying (directly or indirectly) for a cbanned user, ibanning only the other party is Not On. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2-way IBAN - Having read through a large chunk of this discussion and associated diffs, it seems to me that both these editors have made poor choices in the lead-up to all this. I'm personally not thrilled that Warren has come back after flouncing to continue the same dispute, but the diffs that GLL presented above, as well as some of Randy's own comments here, seem to show that he's played a part in dialing up the temperature. Previously, I was going to vote for a one-way IBAN, but now I think a two-way would be the right outcome to move on from this mess. Sigma440 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I've brought this back from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202, since I think there is a consensus to do something. Could an admin possibly officially close this? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• 2-way IBAN and delete the stupid map. At Template talk:Features and artificial objects on Mars Randy should have seen the pushback to this map from Valereee, and a WMF employee flagging up that the template is broken on phones/small screens (still the case in the recreation). Screen reader/keyboard navigation users might wonder why the labels for this map are disconnected from the map and its description, why every label needs 2 seperate links (text and uselessly small image), or why they hear "Mars Polar Lander Down Arrow". If they are blind they will wonder which labels are orange for inactive, if they are partially sighted they will wonder why the labels are in alphabetical order instead of positional order. Edit warring back such badly made content to defend a user CBAN'd for similarly badly made content, when opposition had already been demonstrated by an uninvolved third party in April, is beyond the pale. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, just get the cleanup done already. Randy may be proxy-editing for Drbogdan according to what Im seeing here 37.186.32.157 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Mouse. David10244 (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support deletion of the map: I agree that a malformed and known broken map should not be used, or in this case, revived after it has been deleted with consensus. I will note that Randy's restoration of the template against the consensus should not have been unilaterally imposed, but that does not excuse the actions of Warren throughout this matter. The best course of action I see is to nuke the map to put this matter to rest, since it is clear that neither side is willing to compromise with the other, while ignoring the consensus for its removal and deletion. I did not want ANI to try to impose such measures, but I think, at the rate this is going, it is necessary to prevent further disruption. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have not seen problematic behavior from Randy from the evidence adduced. A 2 way iBan is usually how productive conversations are forced to a halt. Kvinnen (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support 1-way IBAN or indef for Warrenmck. The walls of text and bludgeoning just on this page are way past disruptive. Oppose a 2-way as I suspect this would only lead to more ownership and gaming behavior from Warren. —Rutebega (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is the first accusation of me engaging in WP:OWN behaviour in this entire ANI and comes out of the ether. I proposed a limited TBAN for myself, even. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Did you look at where this started? Moreover, as with Warren here, where did this come from? Maybe some diffs? 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:BD87:306C:B9D9:1DC8 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think this is making it worse. For any admins, I’m comfortable with WP:CHECKUSER and hatting/redacting here. Wikibreaksock: Not Just For Wikibreaks™ (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongly support 2-way As per GLL, above. Also, a 2-way IBAN is how NONproductive conversations, such as these, are forced to a halt.

  ☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 15:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I have posted a Request for Closure for an admin to determine whether there is consensus for a 1-way IBAN or a 2-way IBAN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 disruptively editing page ranges in citations again

Srich32977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please see the latest user talk thread about edits like this one that change page ranges contrary to MOS:RANGEMOS:PAGERANGE. This editor has been asked many times (this one is from 2020) to stop doing this, and they have repeatedly battled the requests and eventually claimed that they would stop. They have been blocked at least once (this is from 2024) for this same behavior, and they are at it again. [edited 24 Sep 2025 to fix MOS link] – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe that if this editor gets unblocked, and if a topic ban is limited to ISBNs only, this editor will be back at ANI sometime in the next year or two due to undesirable non-ISBN citation changes. 8 August 2025, (1 month, 16 days ago)

Quicker than you anticipated. After I asked them to please stop on Sep 21, they just went right back to changing page ranges to their preferred version. Considering the multiple threads on their talk page throughout the years about non-desirable citation changes, I seriously don't know if this is a matter of competence, or just a plain ole chronic and intractable WP:ICANTHEARYOU issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from article-space for a week. Considered a site-block, but I'd like for him to still be able to respond here, especially if we're considering a broader tban or other more severe sanction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest editors review the August ANI thread re Srich's compulsive reformatting of ISBNs [20], then ask themselves what value this character brings to Wikipedia. EEng 13:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I will defer to the wisdom of the admins here, but a longer block from article space seems to be in order here, given the years of disruptive behavior (although the editor has made undesirable changes in draft space as well). In the discussion last month, Andy Dingley recommended WP:ROPE, with a further response as needed. We now see what the editor has done with the rope, and a response is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I would repeat my ROPE comment. The edits here (those I've seen linked) are both: 1. a problem and 2. not blockable. Changing |pages=839–851| to |pages=839–51| is IMHO and AFAIK against policy a bad edit that we do not want from any editor here. It's not an acceptable formatting option, it's one we've vetoed. So they need to be warned to stop that. However it's not one (again AFAIK) that they've been given a ROPE last warning for, as they have for ISBNs. So once again, we do the legwork and grant them massive AGF, just because we're nice people and it's what we do. They get: 1. Warning. 2. Advice to not do it again. 3. A Damoclean ROPE penalty if they do it again. And then surely they will stop doing this. After all, the rest of the edits I've seen linked here are OK and broadly constructive. "Not the way I'd format it", isn't an offence. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder, in case you missed the link above, that this editor was already blocked less than a year ago for making these invalid page-range edits, after many warnings and admonishments on their talk page. They have now been blocked twice for this disruption. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic when you say And then surely they will stop doing this, or if you haven't visited the dozen-plus talk page discussions linked from previous reports, or something else. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were previously blocked for this. It matters if, when they were blocked, they were specifically told not to repeat it, under threat of major long-term blockage (as they have been for ISBNs). If they have (I can't see it), then we use that and go with the long block. If not, then they get to stretch our eternally elastic assumption of good faith until they are warned such. Then next time (Oh, surely not) they're mega-blocked for it. But they do have to be warned clearly first. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No, they do not get to stretch our eternally elastic assumption of good faith. We're not dealing with a rookie editor here, they know damn good and well what they are doing, and they know that multiple editors have consistently and continually raised issues about the way they edit citations, as can be seen by the multiple threads on their talk page. When I asked them to please stop changing the page numbers like that, the very next day they did it again. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Has your policy for repeated requests, without them being backed up with a clear statement of prior warning 'Doing this again will mean a long block', been effective so far? Because with that, this situation solves itself within another iteration. Without, it just keeps rolling on. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What policy? Neither I nor Isaidnoway is an admin. We have no ability to threaten an editor with blocking. We can only warn, advise, and report, which I have done for this editor many times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The TBAN from August had an explicit block-warning associated with it[21] and "blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur" is explicit policy. A block expiring doesn't mean an editor starts back as level-1 warning and AGF/they-didn't-know-it-was-a-problem for the same behavior. DMacks (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A prior block is a clear statement that a specific behavior is not acceptable. Explicitly saying "and don't do it again" is superfluous. Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

They have explicitly promised to resume their PAGERANGE edits once the block expires. During the last block for ISBN edits, they have also stated they do not consider their edits problematic and would resume ISBN edits after the block expires.

We assume they made this promise on good faith, which logically means a harsher sanction is warranted to prevent future disruptions. Northern Moonlight 20:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Northern Moonlight, can you link to the promise you mention? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

[22] [23] Northern Moonlight 23:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm reading the first (and most current) comment differently. I thought he was saying that his "upcoming fixes (to the page ranges and hyphen errors)" would concern page range fixes other than the MOS:PAGERANGE-related, problematic ones. There are many page range fixes needed (changing page params to pages, using appropriate dashes, etc.). I might be the one misinterpreting. Srich32977, can you clarify whether you intend to return to edits that shorten the ending number of page ranges? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

On a longer block: I'm not opposed if any admin wants to lengthen or widen the partial block. My thought is that S was site-blocked about a year ago for 24 hours for this specific issues. I saw a week-long partial block as a reasonable escalation. If S returns to the same misconduct after the block ends, I imagine I'd block for an amount of time measured in months. Ditto for any closely related issues: mass stylistic changes that have consensus against them or some reasonable objections and no consensus for them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I realize I don't know the entire back story but after reading the ISBN discussion, I get the impression that the editor honestly thinks those edits were improving Wikipedia, and wasn't taking on board concerns that such edits were disruptive. The page range issue I see differently. While my guess is the editor thinks there edits are an improvement, they actually aren't, and I summarized three reasons why that belief is flawed on their talk page. I understand they are currently blocked. My naïve hope is the editor will agree that they were mistaken when it comes to page range edits agreed to stop, but if I'm wrong and they disagree, then I'll be happy to support a much longer block. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This editor stated unambiguously in this thread from their talk page, just last year:

Alright, I shall comply with MOS:PAGERANGE

And then just a couple months later in November 2024, they were blocked for doing what they promised not to do. Fast forward to 2025, and they are still doing what they promised not to do. It's kinda hard to AGF they will agree to stop, when they already said they would, and didn't. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not missing that they violated their own agreements I'm simply working on the very narrow and potentially untenable possibility that they are convinced their edits are improving Wikipedia, so I decided to try one attempt to show that even if they think they are complying with the Chicago Manual of Style they are not. It may well fail but I didn't think it it would hurt to try. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"One attempt" after all of the previous warnings and discussions on the editor's talk page? (At least half of these search results link to talk page archives that contain complaints about this editor's page number range editing; here's one from 2019, during which the editor reformed their behavior temporarily.) I provided a link to the previous block at the top of this section so that admins could easily click through to see the history. I don't know how else to explain that this problem and its variants have been recurring for more than six years, resulting in two block so far and endless promises by the editor to cease and desist. It does hurt to try; trust me, I've been doing it for six-plus years. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel like enough WP:ROPE has been given. I have no problem with an indef block right now. However, I get the feeling after reading this user's responses that letting this continue is only delaying the inevitable. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this comment by Isaidnoway, in response to this one by Srich is on-point. If they either don't recognize the problems with their edits (such as WP:MOS trumps external), or worse, think that those who are complaining are the real time-sink (cf. going back on their word), I'm afraid it might be time for an indef. WP:Consensus is policy. There's no urgency to fix any of the stylistic details that seem to be of interest and no clear net value to fix one thing at the expense of something else (all in the scope of stylistic detail). There is net damage to retaining editors who refuse to abide by our behavioral standards or appear unblockable for whatever reason. DMacks (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

That diff by Srich also illustrates that they are following the exact same attitude they showed the last time they were here and got pblocked: So my upcoming fixes (to the page ranges and hyphen errors) must wait. They express a direct and explict intent to go right back to the same edits when their "WikiBreak" (the block) expires, wich will result in their coming back here again, for the same reason, because they are either incapable or unwilling to accept that their editing is considered problematic. Accordingly I have blocked indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I see this as a bit of an overreaction. I recently explained to Srich that their range edits were not following CMOS, and I looked forward to see in the block expired to see if they took this on board. I do understand why you interpreted that edit as intention to violate rules but that's kind of an odd thing to say and I prefer to AGF that it was an intention to return to making fixes that are compliant. YMMV. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

If that comment had just been made this one time, I'd have taken it the same way. But when they were at ANI before, they said the exact same things while pblocked, that they would resume disruptively gnoming when the block was no longer in place - and, <surprised pikachu meme here>, here we are with them disruptively gnoming again. Given that, unfortunatly that comment can only be taken directly at face value. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone would actually say they would "resume disruptively gnoming". Could that be your characterization of what they said? You claimed it's the "exact" same thing but they didn't commit to disruptively edit this time. Which is it? Exact same claim, or your interpretation of their claim? S Philbrick(Talk) 02:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

1. I do not think my editing meets the "disruptive" guideline.^[24]
2. You say "…stop all ISBN edits". Wonderful, that implies that you’ll reinstate me... Please let me come out of the corner and my next 750 edits will focus on Category:Pages with ISBN errors and Category:CS1 errors: ISBN.^[25] (emphasis mine)
3. After the start of the User:Srich32977 modifying ISBN formats again, despite years of requests not to do so thread and receiving a block in main article space on 7:12 5 Aug 2025, the editor moved on to mass ISBN-related edits in other namespaces: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].
4. If I recall correctly, at no point has the editor ever conceded their ISBN/PAGERANGE edits are problematic.

Northern Moonlight 04:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my point even if that was not your intention. I found it difficult to believe that an editor would openly say they plan to undertake disruptive editing, and my speculation turns out to be accurate—Srich doesn't view their edits as disruptive. (Anyone who openly promises to be disruptive deserves an indefinite block, but someone who promises to do something they don't believe is disruptive is a more challenging situation to address.) I will go further and suggest that Srich views their edits as productive. Although I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this present discussion, I read the last four years of talk page archives relating to range discussions, and I am well aware of the many instances Srich has been told that edits are not in compliance with the Wikipedia manual of style. Srich's common response is that they are consistent with the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS). I immodestly think I'm the first editor to point out to Srich that this belief is based upon a misreading of CMOS, and that the range edits are not compliant with CMOS. I was looking forward to the expiration of the one week block to see if Srich would take this on board. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see my detailed comment dated 26 September 2025, with links to previous discussions, at User_talk:Srich32977#Page numbers in citations. The editor has specifically been told that MOS says that CMOS styles for page ranges are not valid for the English Wikipedia, and the editor has promised to "comply with MOS:PAGERANGE". The editor has broken that promise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Whether Srich was confused about what CMoS says is irrelevant, because CMoS doesn't override MOS. And was it CMoS that made him waste so many editors' time with his ISBN preoccupation? EEng 14:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I am in total agreement that "CMoS doesn't override MOS". That was one of the three flaws I identified in my edit, which you have seen. I made that point after the one week block. Perhaps Srich has been informed of that in the past and chosen to ignore it but I thought it was worth making an additional emphatic point in case it had been forgotten. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I found it difficult to believe that an editor would openly say they plan to undertake disruptive editing

They did not. This is irrelevant because neither User:The Bushranger nor I have never claimed they said such thing, only that their edits are disruptive and they would not cease such editing. Intention to disrupt is not a prerequisite to qualify for WP:DE. Northern Moonlight 15:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Up to this point, my comments have been solely focused on range issues. I'm aware that there are concerns about ISBN edits. I had briefly looked at one of the prior discussions and it was my sense that Srich had the better argument but I didn't focus on it nor fully get up to speed on all the issues. I see that Northern Moonlight identifies 23 diffs related to ISBN. As a relevant aside I spent a short period of time as an Arb Com clerk. That required reading the mass of information provided as evidence which often consisted of a long string of diffs. I believe there was an unwritten rule (possibly now in writing) that if you want to introduce a long list of diffs as evidence, make sure the first few are rock solid. It's good advice.

Here's the first diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1304945350

In this edit, Srich removes a purported ISBN entry with the edit edit summary "(not a valid ISBN )".

If you backup one edit, you will see in the info box:

ISBN 978-1-68415-528-8 {{isbn}}: required identifier missing (help): Check isbn value: checksum (help)

which is an indication that something wrong with the ISBN value. (While I can't be certain, it's plausible that Srich found this edit by searching for this notice)

The ISBN is malformed. It took a little detective work, but the editor inserted this value:

978-1-68415-528-8

and should have inserted this value:

978-1-68415-524-8

Note the next to the last digit differs.

As many editors know, the ISBN identifier includes a checksum specifically included to help catch typos such as this, and it successfully noted that the ISBN value was wrong. It doesn't tell you how to fix it — that's on the editor to note the error indication and check it themselves. I suggest it is not the responsibility of the reviewing editor (Srich) to do the detective work to track down the correct ISBN identifier, it is perfectly acceptable to remove a malformed number and count on the original editor, or some other editor is familiar with the subject matter to make the correction.

In my opinion this is a perfectly acceptable edit. Is there anyone who believes it would be better to leave an incorrect ISBN identifier in the article?

Here's the second diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1304946447

In this case, an ISBN identifier:

184426243x

was identified as problematic

If you look at the article prior to Srich's edit, you can find:

(ISBN 184426243x {{isbn}}: required identifier missing (help): Check isbn value: invalid character (help)),

That observation is correct. The identifier needs to end in X not x.

Srich corrected it. The correction remove the red text warning

What possible reason can be given for complaining about this improvement? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the third diff. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1304948604 It seems to be exactly the same issue is the one above. Someone entered an ISBN identifier and incorrectly used x instead of X. The use of the incorrect value produces a checksum error in the article which sounds undesirable. Srich corrected it.

Why is this a problem?

Can someone point me to ISBN edits that are truly problematic? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe that it is better to leave a slightly broken ISBN in an article than to delete it without doing a bit of research. Someone who truly cares about fixing broken ISBNs while not introducing other problems or deleting useful information will look up the title of the book, notice that there is an ISBN that is one number off from the erroneous ISBN, and fix the ISBN.

Please start with User talk:Srich32977#ISBN gnoming, where I linked to many previous discussions. I'll click on the one from June 2023 at random, where I see this diff, deleting a {{listed invalid ISBN}} (i.e. an ISBN that is erroneous but which is printed in a book and thus appears in library catalogs). Based on that discussion, which Sphilbrick claims to have read, Salpynx objects to deletion of this invalid ISBN, so it is unclear why Sphilbrick would ask Is there anyone who believes it would be better to leave an incorrect ISBN identifier in the article? In any event, this block is about a broken promise to comply with MOS:NUMRANGE after many admonitions. I suggest that you start a subheader if you want to talk about the long history of against-consensus ISBN edits (mixed in with good ones) by this editor. Thanks for trying to look through the long history of this editor's interactions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to focus solely on range numbers which is what I started doing. I only started looking into ISBN because Northern Moonlight brought it up. I'm not certain whether the one week block extended to indefinite was solely due to range numbers or was the result of years of frustration with multiple issues. If it's only range values I will limit my comments to range values but if it's broader than that, it seems appropriate to discuss the broader issues. You asserted that the block is solely about range issues, does everyone agree? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

4th diff

Corrected an error. Why is this a problem?

5th diff

Remove an invalid ISBN. Why is this a problem? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think I have argued that their every edit in other namespaces was problematic. The main issue is going on with edits in other namespaces at such quantity immediately after getting pblocked for ISBN formatting in mainspace. This is about WP:IDHT and not WP:ISBN. Northern Moonlight 16:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

We need to reach some consensus.

• Pagerange? Jonesey95 says the only issue is Pagerange
• IDHT? You introduce 23 ISBN edits, and when I start reviewing them and finding all of them (so far) nonproblematic, you assert that the issue is "WP:IDHT and not wp:ISBN" Which leads me to wonder why you went to the effort of tracking down 23 ISBN edits.
• ISBN? The block rationale says " for continuing to make ISBN format changes on pages despite multiple editors raising concerns, cautions not to do so, and an open ANI thread on the subject." emphasis added.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are we still talking about this and wasting everyone's time?

Has there been sufficient rope? Yes, then indef block now.

No? Fine, then issue such a warning. Then it's up to them: either don't do it again and we're all fine, or else keep doing it and then next time it's seen, it's big block time. But thus far, we're still going in circles. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no issues with the current block (the second block in September 2025) or with the rationale provided by The Bushranger. Given the long history of not listening, returning to disruptive editing patterns, and broken promises, I think that the scale of the block matches the editor's behavior. I thank the admins here for their time and attention. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not User:Jonesey95 so you should probably address them directly.

It’s unfortunate that you went off to assume I meant their ISBN edits elsewhere were all problematic and I am backtracking. As for [w]hich leads me to wonder why you went to the effort of tracking down 23 ISBN edits, this is already answered by the message you are replying to with at such quantity. Northern Moonlight 16:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sira Aspera

Sira Aspera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to delete sourced content on pages of:

• Emine Hatun
• Gülçiçek Hatun
• Gülbahar Hatun (mother of Bayezid II)

and previously many others, with no given explanation on why are they doing this, this has been going long enough. 62.4.42.205 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

no given explanation on why are they doing this... I mean, nobody's tried talking with her yet. No discussion, no warnings, nothing. Woodroar (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

False.

• [49] is a warning following this removal, no reply
• [50] is a warning about not using edit summaries when manual reverting, no reply
• [51] is a warning for removals in these edits, no reply
• [52] is a warning for removals in this edit, no reply
• [53] and [54] are warnings for removals at Roxelana [55][56], no reply
• [57] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [58] is a request to explain this revert, no reply
• [59] is a request to explain this BLAR, they did reply [60]
• [61] is a request to explain this removal, no reply
• [62] is a warning for removals in this edit, no reply. They have also recently tried to reinstate this removal on the 27th here, again with no explanation and with the edit marked as minor.
• [63] is a warning for "removing pages from LGBTQ categories without (plausible) explanation", no reply

This is only focused on content removals, there are a litany of warnings for other behaviors like edit warring and unsourced contributions. Replies are very rare, most warnings are silently reverted. A review of their recent contribution history shows more unexplained removals, which are often marked as minor, and edit summaries are rarely used. This pattern of behavior is disruptive. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those diffs. I agree that the removals are disruptive. I'd support a final warning from an admin or a mainspace block, if one is proposed. Woodroar (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Im sorry but proof has been given and to me it looks like they arent planning to engage in a discussion so i do hope admins take appropriate action against the reported user. 62.4.42.205 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Sira Aspera is ignoring this discussion and is instead continuing to edit [64][65][66][67]. Given their issues with communication as illustrated above, requesting an admin pblock them from articlespace to force them to discuss the issues raised here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

And @Sira Aspera's pattern of continuing to edit instead of addressing raised concerns continues: [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]

Example 4A of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". This is unambiguously the case here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Natt1985’s complete lack of communication

Natt1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a talk page full of notices from myself and a few other editors about their editing. They’re at over 1000 edits, yet have never once edited a talk or user talk page (the only entries in their contributions are page moves). The problems users have are unsourced edits, lack of edit summaries and the use of bare URLs - none of these are sanctionable or concerning in their own right, but the fact that they’re completely ignoring their talk page and continue without regard is concerning. Is there any way to get this user’s attention and force them to discuss the concerns editors have on their talk page? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

All their edits appear to be from a mobile. Probably not seeing the notifications. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand that… but it doesn’t really negate their responsibility to communicate per WP:COMMUNICATE. Is there a way to get their attention? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

They don't have email enabled. They have edited a much larger amount on Thai Wikipedia, I have left a message for them on their talk there regarding this. While I understand the frustration, can you point to any particularly egregious editing occurring? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, like I said nothing they’re doing is individually sanctionable, aside from the lack of communication. The issues that have been raised are their lack of edit summaries (I’ve yet to see a single summary), and sourcing problems (sometimes no sources, sometimes bare URLs). I was under the impression however that communication is expected of editors? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Communication is expected, and if combined with other issues can rise to a sanction, but not communicating itself is, while strongly discouraged, not in and of itelf directly sanctionable. However if it's "ignoring multiple concerns about their editing and editing along blithely regardless", that can and does lead to pblocks from articlespace to force communication. We'll see if Goldsztajn's note to them on Thai Wiki gets their attention first here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Just replying here to keep the discussion alive - they are still editing as of today, and nothing’s changed. Any luck getting them on Thai Wiki? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

ThurnerRupert disruptive editing at Israel and attacks

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

Over the past month, ThurnerRupert (talk · contribs) repeatedly removed the entire early history paragraph from the lead section of the Israel article, citing that it was too long and did not belong in the lead. However, such a paragraph is customary in other country articles. After reverting, I left a standard talk-page notice via Twinkle. Although I later shortened the paragraph significantly, the editor escalated the issue to the unrelated WP:Conflict of interest, while never using the article's talk page, and:
— characterized the repeated removal of an entire lead paragraph from a high-profile article as "a tiny content disagreement";
— baselessly claimed I insulted them;
— frivolously suggested I be topic-banned from Israel for a year.
(and I'm not a she, by the way.)

Timeline:

• 31 Aug: ThurnerRupert removed the paragraph.
• 01 Sep: Reverted.
• 21 Sep: ThurnerRupert removed it again.
• 22 Sep: Reverted.
• 22 Sep: I left a talk-page notice.
• 24 Sep: I shortened the para by a third to a very brief version.
• 28 Sep: ThurnerRupert posted at WP:COIN.

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Why have neither of you used the article talk page to discuss the content dispute? Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

triggerhippie4 message and subsequent edit on my talk page, where he removed the invitation to discuss, gave the impression of "no discussion desired". he kind of trivialized a thing i deeply care about: edit wikipedia freely, discuss changes on the talk page, agree on it and continue. i am not sure what might help him to get a better feeling what might insult others and what not, and maybe even see other parts of wikipedia. abstain a while from editing the topic one is closest to may be of great help. i put a section onto the israel talk page, i like your idea best, Schazjmd. what you think Triggerhippie4? ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You care so much about discussing changes on the talk page but took nearly a month, several reverts and prompting on ANI to open a discussion on the article talk page? Something isn't adding up. Excuses about the other editor not wanting to discuss are absolutely lame when you didn't even try the basic thing of opening a discussion yourself on the article talk page. (Also the user talk page discussion was about 3 weeks after you first tried to make your changes.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

am not following edits too closely to be honest, and i am kind of very slow doing stuff, or answering to questions. i moved the text down a little, and then again, as i thought i did not save it the first time. i put the items i care in order, first free edit, and second, if controversial, discuss. but if you look my edit history, i rarely get involved in discussions, there is not a lot of value in being stubborn about something. either it works, or it works not. ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed that line from the standard template simply to keep discussion on your talk page rather than moving it to mine. Your post at Talk:Israel, now suggesting expansion after previously removing content as 'too long,' appears to be an attempt to save face. Your continued suggestion that I be topic-banned is just outrageous. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• You both need to pull your heads in here. Reporting somebody to ANI without discussing your concerns with them anywhere is shocking behaviour. Claiming to have wanted to initiate discussions but you decided against it is very poor behaviour, as is edit-warring deletions of sourced content. Editing Israel/Palestine pages is very dangerous behaviour, and anybody not doing so in good faith is somebody wikipedia is better off without.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  to be clear, i moved text, not removed text. ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/wrong language and behavior by IP and new editor

Need a urgent intervention here. Its Nataliarose123 (talk · contribs). Shares the exact same (disrespectful) language as these two IP’s: 168.70.109.150 (talk · contribs) and 219.73.24.186 (talk · contribs). He’s been editing since yesterday and kep removing content. Then went to another IP and now made a new account to do the exact same thing, with the same behavior. His behavior on the talk page is not normal either: Talk:FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup. I’m not gonna discuss anything with a disruptive and disrespectful editor like this here. Page protections or something more may be needed here. Could be a case of sockpuppetry, if looking at this type of behavior. Woxic1589 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've warned the user--I'm not aware of any past sockmasters, so until they either heed or ignore the warning I'm not sure there's any further action needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 2 days given the flurry of WP:OWN-ish edits and comments by Natalia and the IPs. They've separately also asserted that they will refrain from personal attacks and recalibrate their approach, which if done sincerely should resolve the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Nataliarose123, please don't split discussion to a separate section (Special:Diff/1313961949). It would be helpful if you could identify specific problematic edits with WP:DIFFs so that other editors can assess and respond. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oops sorry... too new to be here...

  May I just ask if I should input the discussion in WP:DIFFs page, or just reply here? Nataliarose123 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  You copy the diff links, and paste them here, with an explanation of why they are problematic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, can the administrator please just ban him from editing the volleyball pages? The 2023 Olympic qualifier for the tournament does not have any sources for who took the silver, bronze, and fourth for both men and women. However, this guy always inputs the unverified info on the page, which may include at least:

  1. FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup; 2. Turkey men's national volleyball team; 3. Japan men's national volleyball team (Note to the admin: But interestingly, he did not edit the Slovenia men's one, who he said took the bronze in the 2023 competition, which made the inconsistency)

  4. Brazil women's national volleyball team 5. Japan women's national volleyball team

  I asked him for evidence consistently, but he did not give it in his edits, and kept on making the unverified edits, making me struggle to edit back. Please take some action to prevent wrong information in the WIKI.

  Really sorry to bother the admin, let's see how to deal with and thanks for all your hard work!!! Nataliarose123 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

None of these are diffs, Nataliarose123. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean?

I am saying in the previous record, The guy Woxic inputted that Brazil took the silver, Japan took the bronze, and PR took the fourth in 2023 volleyball olympic qualifier previously.

However, there was never an announcement from the official (FIVB) about the ranking of the tournament, meaning that this guy insisted on inputting wrong info.

Hope give you clearer picture. Nataliarose123 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

2023 "women's" volleyball olympic qualifier Nataliarose123 (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nataliarose123, diffs are a specific term. They are a link that shows the difference between two edits on a page. Editors who post here are expected to provide a reasonable amount in order to back up what they say, since it is not expected for other editors to have to do work for you. Help:Diff has more specific instructions if you need them. Please provide the diffs for what you are claiming. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 07:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Some more protected pages may be needed (or something else). User continues using the same language at the talk pages and also just keeps removing anything he/she wants to without having reached any sort of a consensus (despite all the warnings): [76] and [77] Woxic1589 (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I hope my format is correct, if not please let me know:

FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup

Original Line 193 made by Woxic1589

2023 | Host: Japan | Champion: Turkey | Runners-up: Brazil | 3rd Place: Japan | 4th Place: Puerto Rican

My Line 193 after his/her edit

2023 | Host: Japan | Champion: Turkey** | Runners-up: Vacant | 3rd Place: Vacant | 4th Place: Vacant

Original Line 209 made by Woxic1589

7 | Brazil | Gold: 1 | Silver: 2 | Bronze: 1| Total: 4

My Line 209 after his/her edit

7 | Brazil | Gold: 1 | Silver: 2 | Bronze: 0| Total: 3

Original Line 212 made by Woxic1589

7 | Brazil | Gold: 0 | Silver: 4 | Bronze: 1| Total: 5

My Line 212 after his/her edit

7 | Brazil | Gold: 0 | Silver: 3 | Bronze: 1| Total: 4

• • The source of proving the Olympic Qualifier being known as World Cup: https://www.fivb.com/japan-unveiled-as-first-hosts-of-olympic-qualification-tournaments/

The source of Turkey getting champion: https://www.duvarenglish.com/turkish-womens-volleyball-team-clinches-world-cup-victory-securing-spot-in-paris-olympics-news-63041 (Thanks for Woxic for providing this, but please see if it can be treated as a proof because there was never a FIVB announcement , the same case applied to Men's tournament as well)

https://www.olympics.com/en/news/volleyball-mens-oqt-road-to-paris-2024-all-results-standings (this olympic page shows no final standing, but only group standing)

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-olympic-qualifying-tournament/ (this volleyball world - kind of a official page also shows no final standing, but only group standing)

Hope it is clear, I don't know. If there is anything still wrong, please just me know! Nataliarose123 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear other editors,

I have a discovery!!!

In this FIVB page (please scroll down to "Past Events 2010 > 2019"), it stated that the final event of Men's World Cup and the women one is in 2019. This page keeps updating and not a outdated page

https://www.fivb.com/volleyball/fivb-competitions/ Nataliarose123 (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The big picture is that: The world cup event was supposed to "defunct" after 2019. but FIVB also claimed that the olympic qualifier in 2023 was known as World Cup, which was shown in the above FIVB/Turkish news link.

And for the ranking, no matter this tournament is treated as World Cup or anything else, there is no final standing at all like other major volleyball tournaments but only group rankings.

So there are two things should be figured out:

1. Should 2023 olympic qualifier treated as World Cup, or olympic qualifier?
2. Should there be any ranking in the said tournament? If yes, where is the proof.

I know that I am really troublesome and makes a lot of troubles to admin, but my goal is to make every input based on fact. I deeply reflect my attitude and open to any evidenced and correct input. Thanks again the admin Nataliarose123 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to protect myself, for all the changes I made right now, I have put it at the talk page. All are welcome to speak to me with strong evidence, and no need to revert back by no discussion~ Thanks for coopertaion and have a good day! Nataliarose123 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nataliarose123, it's very hard to follow what you've written above. If you wish to raise concerns about another editor's work, you need to provide direct links to their edits and explain why they are problematic. The above attempt to reproduce the edits does not help anyone. More to the point, the case against you concerns edit warring across multiple articles while failing to communicate clearly. You appear to have continued this pattern across other articles as of only a few hours ago (e.g. Special:Diff/1314070647, Special:Diff/1314084184). You need to stop relying on the undo button and engage in discussion when other editors disagree with your decisions (or vice-versa). Acknowledging the issues with your past approach here is the first step to avoiding further sanctions and getting your partial-block lifted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

First Problem: No evidence in the tournament's official final ranking

The problematic link is here (all are made by Woxic1589):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIVB_Volleyball_Women%27s_World_Cup&oldid=1313699092
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIVB_Volleyball_Women%27s_World_Cup&oldid=1313872434
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIVB_Volleyball_Women%27s_World_Cup&oldid=1313882527

Original Line 193 by Woxic1589 (In Result Summary Part)

2023 | Host: Japan | Champion: Turkey | Runners-up: Brazil | 3rd Place: Japan | 4th Place: Puerto Rico

I found it problematic because there is no official final ranking in Olympic and Volleyball World pages, please see the below links:

The below Olympic page shows no final standing, but only show the group ranking finally (but there are many groups):

https://www.olympics.com/en/news/volleyball-mens-oqt-road-to-paris-2024-all-results-standings

The below Volleyball World page also showing no final standing, and only have each-group rankings:

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-olympic-qualifying-tournament/standings/men/

However, there is a Turkish news provided by Woxic mentioning that the Turkish team got the champion in the women's tournament (Note to editor: I cannot find any news for the men's winner)

https://www.duvarenglish.com/turkish-womens-volleyball-team-clinches-world-cup-victory-securing-spot-in-paris-olympics-news-63041

And therefore, here is my edits:

My Line 193 after his/her edit

2023 | Host: Japan | Champion: Turkey | Runners-up: Vacant | 3rd Place: Vacant | 4th Place: Vacant

Please see if editors agree on it first, cheers!

Second Problem: Group ranking is not equal to final ranking

The problematic links:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey_men%27s_national_volleyball_team&oldid=1314058436 (Turkey men's volleyball team record)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_men%27s_national_volleyball_team&oldid=1313873297 (Japanese men's one)

Cannot find the line number as I cannot edit

World Cup @ Tukish Men's Volleyball Team:

2023 Japan | 4th place

World Cup @ Japanese Men's Volleyball Team:

2023 Japan | Runners-up

However, the links of Olympic and Volleyball World all mentioned that Turkey and Japan got the 4rd and 2nd respectively in Group B only, but again, this is not representing their own country's final ranking.

Olympic page (Search Pool B Table):

https://www.olympics.com/en/news/volleyball-mens-oqt-road-to-paris-2024-all-results-standings

Volleyball World (Simply scroll down to Pool B):

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-olympic-qualifying-tournament/standings/men/

And therefore, here is my edits:

Delete all the wrong info mentioned above, and not adding anything in the page

Please also see if editors agree on it first, cheers!

Extra Problem: Can 2023 Olympic Qualifier be known as 2023 World Cup?

As mentioned by FIVB, Volleyball World Cup event was supposingly withdrawn after 2019.

https://www.fivb.com/volleyball/fivb-competitions/ (Please scroll down to "Past Events 2010 > 2019")

However, the FIVB also claimed that the 2023 Olympic Volleyball Qualifier was known as the 2023 World Cup:

https://www.fivb.com/japan-unveiled-as-first-hosts-of-olympic-qualification-tournaments/

So it is really so contradicting, and hard to say whether the World cup is equal to Olympic Qualifier, can other editors decide on this issue?

To conclude,

1. Should 2023 volleyball olympic qualifier have a final ranking?
2. Should there be any ranking for the countries like Japan's men and Turkey's men?
3. Should 2023 Olympic Qualifier be known as 2023 World Cup?

Hope the flow is much easier for all to follow! Please let me know if there is any problem Nataliarose123 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Woxic1589, could you briefly address the group vs. final ranking discrepancy that Nataliarose123 is describing here? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have seriously no idea what he exactly means above there as I’m barely able to understand half of his comments, but for the ‘’rankings’’, the only ranking that matters in the case of the 2023 Olympic Qualifier and ‘’World Cup’’ (both men and women) are the Pool B groups, as can be seen here: 2023 FIVB Volleyball Men's World Cup. Only the group stages in Japan were organized with a double purpose, which in this case was the ‘’traditional’’ World Cup event of Japan. The other rankings and group stages are completely irrelevant to this topic. Woxic1589 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. My assessment is that this is a content dispute about how to interpret sources, including those published by the FIVB itself, regarding the continuity of its tournaments and their relation to other tournaments. The allegation that you are systematically adding unsourced content seems unfounded (although perhaps some of the disagreement could have been avoided with more meticulous referencing). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The official Olympic Qualifiers in 2023 were separate tournaments held in China, Japan, and Brazil. The "Pool B" was only a part of this tournament, the group ranking in Japan cannot represent the whole competition's ranking.

Btw, @Rosguill may I ask in your assessment, should World Cup be discontinued after 2019? The FIVB sources are little bit misleading, causing both "ending in 2019" and "ending in 2023" have some reasons to back up. What is your opinion. Thanks for help really!! Nataliarose123 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the continuity of the World Cup. I would suggest discussing further on a relevant article talk page, and call for WP:3O or an WP:RFC as appropriate if you can't come to a consensus with those active on said page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep I totally understand, it is a contraiction made by the FIVB official... Let me figure out a way upon your suggestion.

Anyways, @Rosguill the ranking of 2nd to 4th ranking of both men's and women's 2023 olympic qualifier can be deleted, and @Woxic1589 this is for your reference.

But a finally question (sorry about that!) @Rosguill how about the Turkey getting 1st in women tournament? There was a Turkish news, but never a official FIVB official announcement backing up for that. I prefer deleting it as well because I cannot find any news for men's tournament winner (in english/japanese/german), otherwise it may makes inconsistency between men and women, thanks a lot. Nataliarose123 (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Just wanting to make things simple, if there is no FIVB official news, then better to leave 2023 Olympic qualifier women's tournament champion be vacant as well, same as the men's tournament Nataliarose123 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

All these major events show the final standing at the end:

2025 FIVB Volleyball world champioship

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/men-world-championship/standings/#round-f

2024 Olympic Volleyball Tournament

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-olympic-games-paris-2024/standings/men/#round-f

2023 Volleyball Nation Leagues

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-nations-league/2023/standings/men/#round-f

In 2023 Olympic Qualifier, the sole purpose of the game is to bring the first 2 in each group to 2024 olympic tournament, so only group ranking makes sense, and there is no final standing announced by FIVB

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/volleyball-olympic-qualifying-tournament/standings/men/ Nataliarose123 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Please ignore all these messages as I tried to put the discussion in the talk board: Talk:FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup#Definition of World Cup and 2023 ranking

Try to make some difference, hope it works finally Nataliarose123 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Woxic1589

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

---

Woxic1589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, can the administrator please just ban him from editing the volleyball pages?

The 2023 Olympic qualifier for the tournament does not have any sources for who took the silver, bronze, and fourth for both men and women. However, this guy always inputs the unverified info on the page, which may include at least:

1. FIVB Volleyball Women's World Cup 2. Turkey men's national volleyball team 3. Japan men's national volleyball team Note to the admin: But interestingly, he did not edit the Slovenia men's one, who he said took the bronze in the 2023 competition, which made the inconsistency

4. Brazil women's national volleyball team 5. Japan women's national volleyball team

I asked him for evidence consistently, but he did not give it in his edits, and kept on making disruptive edits, making me struggle to edit back. Please take some action to prevent wrong information in the WIKI, Thanks a lot, admin.

All the best!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliarose123 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

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

I just blocked the editor from one of the articles they were edit warring on but, Woxic1589, I have a note for you too: leave it alone. Let others deal with this editor. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Right-wing POV pusher disrupting articles

Kaisersauce1 (talk · contribs · block user) is a right-wing POV-pusher who regularly disrupts articles and forces their own opinion into them, usually by removing content they disagree with.

Diffs

• [78] User removes a large block of text from Tariff which discusses economists' consensus on them, falsely claiming that the text is "almost absurdly" opinionated.
• Upon having the above edit reverted by Discospinster, ([79]) Kaisersauce1 tendentiously removes more cited content [80].
• [81] User removes cited content about the article subject which portrays it in a negative light.
• [82] User removes cited content about the articles subject which portrays it negatively.
• [83] Ditto.
• [84] User tries to obscure important (and negative) part of the (far-right) subject's life.
• [85] Conversely, here, the user obscures positive attributes of a progressive activist they clearly don't like.
• [86] Again, suppressing negative facts about a conservative BLP.
• [87] User removes discussion of possible racism, without edit summary. I guess we're supposed to be whitewashing history?
• [88] User tries to suppress negative facts about the U.S. in the lead, and then nearly edit wars over it ([89], [90])

And there's plenty more, as a quick look at the contribs will show. Kaisersauce1 is apparently here only to suppress facts to push their own far-right POV, and I propose they be blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd actually say a lot of those edits are justifiable. The Thomas removal, for example, was arguably undue for placement in the lede of a BLP, and the Bolsonaro conviction didn't need to be mentioned both at the top and bottom of the lede (which is probably too long, anyway). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

They've only had a couple recent edits. They haven't been a very active editor. Have you tried discussing this issue with them? It's quite a lot to go from 0>Indefinite block with barely a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

A lot? Would you like to point out specific ones? In my opinion, nos. 100–103, 105, and 109–112 are pretty dire; the others are less bad or questionable. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 01:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

For example, the Tariff edit (no. 100 at the moment) includes a link to an NYTimes article about fast-track trading authority by Mankiw which doesn't touch directly on tariffs. The Poole article referenced there claims 90 percent support in a poll that tariffs and quota reduce economic welfare, but 20% of that is "support with provisos", with no indication of what those provisos might be. So, enough doubt could be raised to make removing the section as a WP:BOLD action entirely reasonable. Discussion would have to ensue to determine if there was actual consensus for the "near unanimous consensus" phrasing and the references that claim to support it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And the Dr. Seuss article links to a single article about racism in his work. A single article might not be enough to support a charge of "recent criticism" -- but adding Seuss Enterprises' withdrawal of 6 of his works, which was not mentioned in the article previous to this, shows that the criticism is substantial enough to mention. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd also agree that at least some of the edits (I have not checked all) are reasonable. For example, the removal of current news stuff from the lede of the article on the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That kind of information can easily go in the history section or criticism section of the article, but current news rather don't belong in the lede when the lede doesn't mention any other aspects of the history of the ICE. Nakonana (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

That's what ICE is known for now. (But further content discussion should happen on the talk page there). It is worth noting that most of the user's edits have been reverted, and that their edit summaries extremely clearly show them to be WP:NOTHERE. I think their intent is quite obvious. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

is known for now. That's the problem. Only mentioning in the lede what's on the news now without mentioning the rest of the history is putting undue weight on current events. Nakonana (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fans flooding Love Island-related AfDs with LLM-generated !votes

I don't know if this is something that should be addressed now or just left to a closer to sift through, but single-purpose accounts have been flooding the AfDs for two former contestants on the Love Island reality TV show with LLM-generated !votes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olandria Carthen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe. (Also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Olandria Carthen, which is attracting a large number of misplaced votes for some reason). Much of this seems to be coming from substantial off-wiki canvassing, e.g. [91], [92], [93], [94] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should be placed. I'm sorry you're receiving such harassment from people with nothing better to do than make volunteer's lives harder. jolielover♥talk 13:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Very sorry to see that you were mentioned by name in one of those twitter threads. — Czello ^(music) 13:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That's no big deal, I've dealt with worse than being called a "hater" of a show I've never seen :) My primary concern is keeping the AfDs manageable for the eventual closer, who shouldn't have to wade through thousands of words of AI slop to evaluate consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the AfD for Olandria Carthen...article talk and the other article are not over the threshold for semi-protection at the moment inho. Ping me when it gets worse, or place a request at WP:RFPP. Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I also hatted the obvious LLM comments at Olandria Carthen, feel free to double check and make sure I got everything and didn't accidentally hat something actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've changed some of the templates to {{cait}}, but my rough assessment is that most of the stuff hatted should be hatted. It is a bit hard to tell though. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 15:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

45dogs That's a useful template, thanks. Why did you only replace "some"? —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I tried to only hat things that were obviously LLM generated; things with Oaicite are obviously LLM gen, but other votes could likely just be hatted as canvassed/extended content/SPA. Some of my hatting should be adjusted though.

(semi unrelated) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Vansteenberghe is getting more SPAs. @Lectonar, would semi protection be applicable? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I took a look and think it's applicable, so I took care of it myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Utterly devoid of merit "articles" for a recent series of a "reality" tv show that just ended, why am I not surprised...

The irony of course is that most of these people flooding in will have forgotten their names by year end. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely: Frederick Lewis Allen was editorializing a century ago over the "ballyhoo" of pop culture phenomena vanishing like thin air from the public consciousness as soon as their 15 minutes of fame were up. A Facebook memory about how little I cared about the Casey Anthony trial surfaced a couple of days ago ... and fourteen years on, I wager the reaction most people would have now would be "Who?" Ravenswing 10:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As far as non-Wikipedians participating in deletion discussions, this seems like fairly proprietous advice. From the "threads.com" tweets linked above:

The way Wikipedia works: pages stay up if they’re considered notable. That means they need strong evidence of media coverage and impact.

- Join the deletion discussion page. - Post arguments using reliable sources (press, interviews, Olandria’s award nomination). -Keep the tone factual + professional, not emotional.

The best strategy is to - Add links to articles or features in reputable outlets. - Highlight their roles in Love Island USA S7 and recognition outside the show.

Avoid defenses like “they’re loved” or “they’re popular.” Those won’t count in Wikipedia’s process. What matters most: sources + impact.

If enough of us add strong, well sourced arguments, Nic & Olandria’s pages have a chance and may not be deleted.

It is difficult for me to think of any better way they could have done this, other than the flat assertion that people who aren't established Wikipedians are simply not allowed to know about our processes or participate in them. jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

They got the advice from ChatGPT which explains how they're so educated on Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deletion processes. jolielover♥talk 01:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Who cares where it came from if it's true? jp×g🗯️ 10:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree with JPxG; that's sound advice, whether it came from ChatGPT or an admin with twenty years' experience. What's wrong with that? Ravenswing 00:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Pre-Chat GPT, these would have been WP:MEATPUPPETS that sounded like newbies. Post-Chat GPT, these are now meatpuppets that sound like experienced editors. Either way, they are still meatpuppets, and their presence in the AFD is bad. And them using tools to camouflage themselves slightly better is likely not a good thing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am troubled by this adversarial approach to readers commenting on our processes. At the point when people actually being able to understand our policies is considered a negative because it allows outsiders to "camouflage" themselves, we may as well start wearing funny hats and doing candle-lit ceremonies. jp×g🗯️ 02:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Do they actually understand the policies? Or are they just copy/pasting what ChatGPT told them to? Parroting what they think we want to hear is an actual problem, perpetuated by people thinking these LLMs "know" anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the bigger problem is the canvassing/meatpuppetry aspect. A third party website is brigading our AFDs. If these were readers or editors stumbling across the AFD naturally and then asking ChatGPT what our policies are, then that would probably be fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Meatpuppetry and SPA accounts distorts community consensus making, even if they know just enough about policy to make a convincing sounding argument. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that I've just AfDed the following contestant articles, which have similar notability issues:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leah Kateb
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kordell Beckham
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrington Rodriguez

Not sure if the fan enthusiasm is more related to the show or the two contestants I originally AfDed, but if it's the former, these discussions may need an eye on them also. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by Winfred Canada

Winfred Canada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to months of warnings. User was previously blocked for 72h in July due to persistent addition of unsourced content - behaviour continued after block expired. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Waxworker (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked from articlespace until they find this discussion or their talk page. I don't actually find the unsourced content that egregious, it's mostly in the context of other content which is equally unsourced, but communication is not optional. Rusalkii (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What does it take to get rid of blatant Blp issues

G10 of Murder of Aboubakar Cissé has been rejected by two admins who couldn´t bothered to then at the very least remove the worst of the blatant BLP violations from the page. Handling this discreetly apparently didn´t work, so the ANI megaphone is needed instead. Fram (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are significant BLP violations on the page. I agree with the two admins that it doesn't qualify for G10 as written nor do I think that this from BLP applies If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.. I think you're wrong when you decide that particular volunteers have a burden to fix something merely because they take an action supported by policies and guidelines. But in light of the significant BLP violations that are present, I don't think the page belongs in mainspace in its current form and as such have draftified it. This is quasi-IAR, so if someone else disagrees with me that this is the best way of addressing the BLP issues they can feel free to revert and attempt a different way of addressing those issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the two admins who declined: Liz and Significa liberdade since neither was notified of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

There are also other issues with the page: the titles of the sources are not given, but usually replaced by translated versions. Some of these mention the suspect's name in the reference title, while the original source does not mention it. There are sources giving the full name (I don't know whether any in the article do so, the sourcing is hard to follow) so it is not an immediate BLP delete, but it is problematic and leaving out of mainspace seems like a good idea for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this was the right decision, and I have to say I am pretty unimpressed with the two admins who simply restored an obviously BLP-problematic article. Yes, it wasn't a G10, but that's not the point. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

If someone correctly identifies BLP issues and incorrectly identifies the solution, I disagree that the admins who say "wrong answer" have some sort of obligation to fix the BLP issues. Though I guess some way of acknowledging the BLP issues beyond an edit summary (e.g. a tag) would be helpful/useful. But I definitely come down on the "we're all volunteers here and as volunteers can decide which way we want to help" even here because given the length that the page was nominated a whole lot of admins chose to neither delete nor decline the nomination and so it seems a bit unfair to say that beacause someone was willing to do one thing they then agreed to do a whole lot more. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I would rather see the CSD tag left on it until an admin could clean it up rather than just remove it as "yeah, it's a horrible violation, but it's not that particular horrible violation". There's no other way to get it taken care of without drawing further attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why I landed at "they should have left a tag" because that is a way of ensuring that the BLP issues do eventually get addressed, while not saying that an admin who enforces policies signs up to do major content work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Getting the damn thing out of mainspace until it can be fixed, which you quite correctly did, is not major content work. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, either admin could have chosen to partially restore material, not do a wholesale revert and re-add material another editor, in good faith, had identified as poorly-sourced & controversial material about an incredibly vulnerable living person? I've yelled at antivandals & anti-COI editors for doing that, and, sorry, but anybody whose response to BLP issues is to re-add the material and instruct somebody else to Edit out the POV parts[95] should not be patrolling the G10 category.

Also, @Barkeep49, the individual has not been convicted of murder; could you not, in future, move articles to titles like that? Even in draftspace, BLP issues are still BLP issues and titles accusing people of murder aren't okay. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You are correct on the naming and it's a fair point which I will endeavor to keep in mind in the future. However, we do treat incorrect uses of the flowchart as things that can be permitted (such as with redirects). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Yes, I'm aware (and disagree with, sometimes) WP:RNEUTRAL and the death/murder/killing essay. On the subject of redirects, however, if you like it, could you delete it and recreate it? Even hidden in draftspace, I'd rather not have it attached to my name; I was forced to create it by the page moving software. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. But I would note, as the person who closed the RfC that directly led to the creation of the explanatory supplement, that there was explicitly not a consensus to make that page a guideline and that is why it is an explanatory supplement and so we should not treat that page as having a level of community consensus that it hasn't proven to have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that I was one of the admins who declined the G10 without further action, I figure I should add a statement here. Fram added the G10 tag and removed the BLP violations in the same edit. When I reviewed the G10, I reviewed the article the violations had been removed from. Not seeing any obvious violations, I declined the G10 by reverting Fram's edit, not recognizing they'd removed significant amounts of text (though I probably should have). I then reached out to Fram to understand the nomination, stating I'd be happy to take another look. At that time, I stepped away from Wikipedia, not seeing Fram's talk page response (or this ANI) until about half an hour ago. I do not state this as an excuse but an explanation of my own behaviour. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The article you reviewed was the full article, not some cleaned version, so I don't quite understand your reply here. All I did was blank it (by applying the CSD tag), nothing else, and no one else had removed the offending bits either. If you saw no BLP issues at all with the text, then perhaps you should reread the BLP policies and especially things like WP:BLPCRIME and related stuff.

Thank you to everyone who helped with this; perhaps the old revisions can be rev-delled as well. Finally, to the above point of admins being volunteers and not needing to do content work; that's wrong in this case. If you reinstate an article tagged for speedy for BLP issues, and you don't do anything about the issues, then you reinstate the BLP issues and are responsible for them being again visible. Similar to when you would remove a G5 (sock creation), not because the tag is wrong but because you want the article kept: fine, but then you have taken responsability for the article text as it stands, and can't blame issues on the sockmaster ("Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content."). Perhaps this should be made more explicit at the G10 page or elsewhere. Fram (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of this IAR G10 deletion I did some years back. The article was ultimately cleaned up with a whole bunch of egregious BLP violations removed, but that should have been the bare minimum. Similar to the old trope "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,", the burden to demonstrate a lack of BLP violations in the encylopedia lies with the editor who adds or restores them. If in doubt, leave it out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems I've erred again. I will re-review BLPCRIME specifically. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Worrying editing by multiple IP users

• Eugene Vindman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Douglas Ollivant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are several IP users who appear to be closely connected to both Eugene Vindman and Douglas Ollivant, who are running in the 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia in the 7th district.

1) 143.231.249.139

This first user is geolocated to inside the White House (https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/143.231.249.139)

They've been editing Vindman's page (though the edits were reverted), previously removing the 'Immigration' section of his political views and replacing it with "Vindman has dedicated his life to serving our country and decided to continue this mission and run for office in 2024. In Congress, he is working with both sides of the aisle to lower costs, improve public education, and protect our basic rights and freedoms." (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugene_Vindman&diff=1277596663&oldid=1277140774)

They are clearly a congressional staffer - in 2017 as part of an edit summary on another elected official they wrote "What was there is not true I work in the congressman's DC office and what was there is a lie"

2) 2601:140:8480:AE0:A8A6:86BB:F3DE:A537

The second user is based in Baltimore (https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2601:140:8480:AE0:A8A6:86BB:F3DE:A537)

They have edited Vindman's page to add an 'ethics complains' section using mostly unreliable sources in the incorrect references format, including right-wing watchdog group 'Americans for Public Trust (APT)'

They've also edited Ollivant's page (which is currently nominated for deletion) using unreliable sources, making it appear to be promotional in nature. Much of it is unsourced and appears to exaggeratw his military record.

3) Several other users

There are also several IP users in the greater D.C. area who appear to be editing Vindman's page, notably two who appear to come from the exact same street corner in D.C. (See: https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2600:4040:2872:CC00:8D31:3CF7:5CD7:FBE8 and https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2600:4040:2015:5C00:10:5CF:8637:B827)

@DMacks has previously banned multiple other IP users who were editing District 7 info. I think semi-protection is warranted as about 50% of the edit history is IP accounts.

Aesurias (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have semiprotected both Eugene Vindman and Douglas Ollivant for two months due to concerns about badly-sourced information in BLPs. For example, see WP:NYPOST. Vindman and Ollivant are apparently running against each other for a Virginia congressional seat in 2026. The IP editors involved can still use the article talk pages to make their case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: 125 complaints and counting

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

Tagging @Ymblanter, Pawnkingthree, Cullen328, Praxidicae, TJRC, Yamla, SilverLocust, Valereee, and InvadingInvader based on their participation in previous noticeboard discussions.

Coolcaesar has a two-decade history of treating other editors with contempt. This is evident from the 125 complaints on their talk page. The recurring motif is overzealous reversion combined with disparaging remarks. A request for arbitration seems to have been made in 2006.[96] Czar said "Consider this your last warning on tone" in 2016.[97] Ymblanter came here after being falsely accused of vandalism in 2022.[98] SilverLocust opened another discussion in 2023.[99]

Since then, five more complaints have been made.[100][101][102][103]s[104] However, that doesn't capture the scope of the problem because Coolcaesar has a habit of biting newcomers with a revert that includes a false accusation of vandalism. Newcomers don't complain; they just disappear. One particularly sad case from long ago is that of ThomasisScholar who was viciously and permanently driven away.[105]

Recent examples of disruptive hostility include:

• clear vandalism [106] in response to a newcomer's first edit.[107] A headline supports the newcomer.[108]
• possible vandalism [109] though the edit being reverted isn't.[110] Culs-de-sac is apparently the correct plural in French and is listed as being acceptable in an English dictionary [111]
• obvious vandalism [112] where the edit being reverted is pretty clearly in good faith.[113] Sunnyvale and Cupertino are adjacent areas and Sunnyvale does in fact have an Apple corporate campus.
• frequent vandalism [114] is another example of a newcomer's first edit being trashed.[115] Nvidia was founded by a former employee of AMD and at the time of founding was a competitor of ATI Technologies which later became part of AMD.

When this was last discussed here, Coolcaesar said: It is abundantly clear my efforts are not appreciated. So I will focus my text edits on a small number of articles I love the most (the ones where I wrote most of them), and I promise to keep my edit summaries for those articles terse, anodyne, and civil. And if even in that limited sphere, I again cross the line, feel free to indefinitely block me.

However, rather than a block, I'm drawn to a combination of civility supervision and an idea floated by Yamla: a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism. This would give Coolcaesar room to focus on adding content. Uhoj (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support CBAN: The sooner we wipe out the pernicious nonsense that the definition of "vandalism" is "edits I don't like" the better. (Unfortunately, we can't do a whole lot about people who claim to be lawyers diving down false equivalency rabbit holes -- it's not "efforts" we don't appreciate, it's chronic and pervasive incivility -- but I digress.) If Coolcaesar's incapable of civil interactions with their fellow editors, let's by all means limit them.
  (Edit: and the discussion's just crystallized it. Like MiasmaEternal below, I'd support stronger sanctions now, because I don't see Coolcaesar being capable of collegial interactions, let alone civil ones. If you disagree with them, you're ignorant of the issues involved/haven't read the material. If you've been persuaded by another argument, you've been gaslit. If someone accumulates evidence to disprove their stance, they're being hounded. Wikipedia has no room for those who just cannot conceive of people holding different views from them without malice, chicanery or ignorance involved.) Ravenswing 10:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  You modified your position to argue for broader sanctions after I fully refuted your contention below that I am attacking "imaginary words" by quoting the exact words I was responding to. And you didn't respond further to that point. That speaks for itself. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  What that speaks to, sir, is that I've already said a fair bit more than my piece in this thread, and that unlike some others, I don't feel the need to bludgeon people with commenting on every comment everyone makes. I'm happy for the closing admin to take it from here. The concept of not being so enamored of my sparkling and superior intellect that I shower it in unceasing torrents upon the Wikipeons my fellow editors might be difficult for you to grasp, but it's there all the same. Ravenswing 21:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose' and counterpropose narrow topic ban on use of the word "vandalism" in revert edit summaries, WP:CHECKUSER investigation of User:Uhoj, and an indefinite block of User:Uhoj for violating WP:CIVILITY, especially WP:HOUNDING. As I explain at length below, User:Uhoj is out for revenge because of how I explained at length on Talk:Military–industrial complex why their edits are poorly written and violate multiple WP policies like WP:NOR. The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits. However, in the spirit of good faith, I am amenable to a strict but narrow topic ban on the use of the word "vandalism" and grammatical variants thereof ("vandal", "vandalizing", etc.) in all revert edit summaries going forward. That will force me in reverting wrong edits to cite other reasons, such as "incorrect", "wrong", "factually wrong", "not correct grammar", etc. Obviously, there will be times when I do need to challenge obvious vandalism or patterns of ongoing vandalism, but I will do so on talk pages, rather than in edit summaries. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  superior writers like myself – Don't you mean "superior writers such as myself", Mr. Superior Writer Lawyer? (Of your use of myself, I'll leave my fellow editors to make what they will.) EEng 20:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, no, no, just no. All that does is leave you free to use hostile terms like "defacing," or "wrecking," or "ruining" instead ... or else claim that the Twinkle template left you with No! Choice!. Ravenswing 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Then about a broad topic ban on revert edit summaries except for short two or three-word factual statements that do not ascribe any specific intent to the editor reverted and focus on what is wrong with the content of the edit at issue itself, or simply link to the relevant policy. For example, grammar error, spelling error, no sources cited, OR, factually wrong, fails verification, off-topic, etc. And then if I want to say anything further, I will have to say, "See talk page" and post a civil explanation there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Coolcaesar Why are you inserting your new comments above the earlier comments of other editors? Uhoj (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Coolcaesar in my interactions with him has been unusually antagonistic for relatively minor disputes, essentially throwing the book at me for a BOLD move on Apple Campus to what would eventually consensus arrive at Apple Infinite Loop Campus and alleging that I should never move a long established page title. I personally am not surprised that this has continued to happen and while I do not deny that he has been contributing in good faith, his contributions can be often forceful at least from how I interpret what's happening. I am not ready to make a recommendation yet for how we should proceed, but I will keep an eye on this thread and see how it develops. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  See Talk:Apple Infinite Loop campus for full context. The current article title is rarely found in that exact form in published sources. As I pointed out on that talk page, the sources that use all four of those words either interpose other words between Apple and Infinite Loop, or if they do use all four words in that exact order, it's always with an apostrophe to show ownership, as in "Apple's Infinite Loop campus." Again, under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PLACEDAB, WP does not include unnecessary information in article titles, especially where no other thing has the same name and the name is already unique. It should be back at the official name, "Apple Campus," or the common name, "Infinite Loop campus". --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• See WP:BOOMERANG and WP:HOUNDING. This incident is User:Uhoj's revenge in response to this discussion on Talk:Military–industrial complex. I request all appropriate remedies including a sockpuppet investigation. Usually when an editor with only 1,275 edits is this well-versed in Wikipedia policy, they nearly always turn out to have had multiple accounts and have been banned multiple times before.
  The underlying issue is that the article subject is something that I am only casually interested in, but it is a low priority because it is a tangent to my core interest in the history of American science and technology policy and the related subject of the history of American higher education. That's why my main priority lately has been expanding coverage of the history of various University of California units. In other words, I have enough interest in the military-industrial complex to protect the article on that subject from poor-quality edits, but not enough to independently research the literature on the subject matter in sufficient detail to be comfortable with making meaningful contributions to the article. If you view the linked discussion (and scroll up), I and others kept pointing out how User:Uhoj's contributions to the article were egregiously failing WP:CIR, in terms of dozens of obvious errors, and they needed to stand down, WP:DROPTHESTICK, do some hard work on their research and writing skills, and then come back. User:Uhoj proceeded to lash out at me because I was obstructing their preferred version of the article (which was pretty bad, with over 40 obvious errors) while simultaneously refusing to invest my own time and energy to jointly contribute to building a better article.
  I am very busy with work today so I don't have the time to investigate and respond to all of User:Uhoj's accusations above. I will have to respond at length tomorrow. In general, User:Uhoj is dredging up old complaints for which I have already thoroughly apologized. As for the recent ones, my initial impression is that the revert itself was the correct action but my edit summaries could have been more tactfully phrased.
  For example, I described culs-de-sacs as possible vandalism because I had never seen that before in my life and it sounded like something made up. I am a history major who reads voraciously (including scanning all major English-language newspapers at least monthly for over 20 years) with extensive experience in real estate litigation, in which the term cul-de-sac is in common use. Researching the issue right now on Google Ngram Viewer shows that culs-de-sacs is a minority usage that was last dominant in the published English corpus in 1930 and cul-de-sacs has been clearly dominant since about 1970. So the alternative term does exist, but it is clearly obsolete. Perhaps I should have just said it was incorrect (i.e., a good faith but incompetent edit) rather than characterizing it as vandalism (which implies an element of bad faith). But the revert was the right thing to do. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  As someone with a similar number of edits to Uhoj, I'm not seeing what is suspicious about their knowledge of Wikipedia policy that would justify checkuser. I don't personally know what a civility supervision is (well I guess I do now), but the rest all seems within what I already know from observing ANI/AE discussions? Bear in mind that the idea at the end a mandatory WP:0RR restriction with no exception for vandalism is a quotation from another user, not Uhoj's own idea. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Culs-de-sac is clearly obsolete? Somebody should tell Wikimedia Commons that, then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Google ngrams is not a linguistic corpus. But even if you were right about the plural form (you are not), your remark Perhaps I should have just said it was incorrect (i.e., a good faith but incompetent edit) rather than characterizing it as vandalism (which implies an element of bad faith) is enough to make me support the 0rr restriction proposal. There is no "perhaps" about it, and this has been going on for too many years. --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Largely off topic discussion on Culs-de-sac vs Cul-de-sacs

• No, I am correct as to the plural form. Spelled correctly with hyphens, the overwhelming dominance of cul-de-sacs over culs-de-sac in the English language is much more obvious on Ngram Viewer. Culs-de-sac is unheard of in American English. As the New York Times style blog explained in 2015, the newspaper's stylebook uses cul-de-sacs, not culs-de-sac. The New York Times has about 18 articles which use culs-de-sac and several hundred which use cul-de-sacs. The Washington Post only has five articles which use culs-de-sac but several hundred which use cul-de-sacs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Interestingly part of the cul-de-sac page if it still isn't changed still use culs-de-sac 37.186.32.157 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is from the article: Environmental effects

  Culs-de-sac are criticised by urban designers like those of the Foundation for the Built Environmentin the UK for encouraging car transport for even short distances, as more direct connections are precluded by the geometry, which necessitates long travel distances even to physically-nearby locations. This increases fuel consumption and vehicle emissions and has negative effects on health by reducing walking and cycling rates. Related research in the United States by Richard Jackson has shown that people in car-based (cul-de-sac heavy) communities weigh on average 6 pounds (2.7 kg) more than those in traditional towns (with open grid networks). 37.186.32.157 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like another anon IP overrode my revert on 23 June 2025 and I didn't catch it. If you look at Talk:Dead-end street and the article history itself, it's clear that a slow-moving edit war has been simmering on this issue for decades between American English and Commonwealth English speakers, but no one has ever bothered to drag the issue into the open and settle it once and for all with a full-blown RfC advertised on the village pump. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also very interestingly, there's something in the talk page about the plural form… you may actually want to check it out. Maybe actually discuss it rather than discuss via edit summaries or call it vandalism when culsdesac gets used instead (which by theway is a valid plural of cul de sac) 37.186.32.157 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  As someone who is bilingual in English and French I'd say culs-de-sac is preferable. It is certainly not vandalism to use it whatever the new york times might say about it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  The Wall Street Journal uses cul-de-sacs 87 times, but has apparently "culs-de-sac" never used culs-de-sac in the articles published on their web site (which go back to the late 90s). I just checked and the same pattern above is also evident with the Los Angeles Times. So four of the most important and widely read American English newspapers of record have adopted cul-de-sacs as the correct usage. The only people regularly using culs-de-sac in the United States are probably either bilingual in French, or they read a lot of European urban design books and journals written in Commonwealth English. But saying culs-de-sacs to nearly all American realtors or real estate lawyers will draw a quizzical expression, followed by a correction ("you mean cul-de-sacs"). Apart from my experience in real estate litigation, I'm the son of a retired real estate agent. I have a lot of memories of getting dragged along to open houses where real estate terminology was in the air ("this lovely house is very quiet because it sits on a cul-de-sac"). --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Tagging DFlhb who was involved in a previous noticeboard discussion, but was accidentally omitted above. Uhoj (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• I just took a further look. The pattern here is that User:Uhoj is stretching the truth to make my edit summaries look bad after the fact. This pattern of playing fast and loose was a serious problem with their edits in general on Military-industrial complex (as I had discussed at length on that talk page), which is why I repeatedly urged User:Uhoj in that discussion to drop the stick and take some time out to work on remedial writing skills.
  As to Bong Jong Ho, my recollection is that I reverted that edit as clear vandalism because (1) no source was cited for the contention that he had four Oscars and (2) a quick check of Google revealed numerous news sources saying he had earned three Oscars. So it wasn't a close call, which is why I didn't label it "possible vandalism" or use the more bland "incorrect edit". To make that look bad after the fact, User:Uhoj dug up an obscure news article which incorrectly said he had four.
  As to Apple Inc., the contested edit also altered an image caption which expressly stated that Apple Park is located in Cupertino, California (but did not change the city in that caption). So it was difficult to see how one in good faith could edit such a caption and then turn around and edit another part of the article to change "Cupertino" to "Sunnyvale". The image caption and the numerous mentions of Cupertino throughout the article should have tipped off the editor to the fact that Apple has always been headquartered in Cupertino.
  As to Nvidia, User:Uhoj is quoting me out of context. When read in context, I was not attacking that particular editor (an anon IP). I did not label the edit "vandalism"; rather, I called it "inaccurate". I then followed that up with a mention of my exasperation with how the Nvidia article is a high-traffic article seeing heavy vandalism nearly every day (because on most days it is now the world's most valuable company). The full edit summary for that edit is as follows: "Revert inaccurate edit on 29 July 2025 by 2402:e280:3e0c:20f:2832:2633:3d4c:fb36 which failed verification against cited sources. Article probably needs semi- or permanent protection at this point due to frequent vandalism." I specifically used the term "inaccurate" because if you look at the edit, the anon IP was inserting a facially wrong statement about AMD into a section of a sentence before existing citations to three sources. None of them mention AMD or say that Nvidia was founded as a competitor to AMD. However, I recall that I carefully refrained from calling the edit itself "vandalism", because I was aware that people unfamiliar with the nuances of Nvidia history might not fully understand that Jensen Huang, a former AMD designer, was not in direct competition with AMD at the time he founded Nvidia (since it did not acquire ATI until years later). (Pay attention to who took the HQ photos for the Nvidia and AMD articles.)
  Look at Talk:Military–industrial complex again, where I took the time to patiently explain, with the utmost civility, why User:Uhoj's edits are very poorly written and should not be in the article.
  Instead of following my advice and taking the time to become a better WP editor, User:Uhoj apparently spent at least three or four hours reviewing my talk page and my tens of thousands of contributions. It speaks volumes about their character, especially the reiteration of User:Yamla's 0RR restriction proposal. We are dealing with an editor who is clearly more determined to spend their time driving away superior writers like myself away from Wikipedia. User:Uhoj is WP:NOTHERE to build a better encyclopedia. The inevitable result is that no one will be left to revert User:Uhoj's terrible edits. I propose an (1) immediate WP:CHECKUSER investigation and an (2) indefinite block for User:Uhoj's violations of the WP civility policy, especially WP:HOUNDING. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  TL; almost DR, but I'll take notice of the last paragraph. This might come as a surprise to you, Coolcaesar, but there are those of us who do review an editor's contribution history before making sweeping assertions as to an editor's character and deportment. Is there some reason -- as one who claims to be a lawyer -- you're opposed to people looking at the evidence before acting? The "volumes" it speaks about Uhoj is nothing more than that they are being thorough. Beyond that, would you please ratchet down the hyperbole? If you're genuinely conflating wanting you -- at long last -- to follow Wikipedia's civility rules to driving so-called "superior" editors off the site, speaking of speaking volumes about character, that does about yours. Ravenswing 20:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't imply they're thorough, it implies they are vindictive and WP:NOTHERE. As that talk page shows, I gave generous feedback and advice in full compliance with the civility policy, which was clearly neither appreciated nor followed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Look around you, Coolcaesar. A number of uninvolved editors and admins are chiming in. Do you see many people here agreeing with your characterization of events? Ravenswing 20:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, it's obviously because none of them took the time to review Talk:Military–industrial complex.

  I suggest searching that talk page for this text string: "Do you understand what the word "caused" means?" on 7 August 2025 and then read the analysis that follows. Notice the defensive response: "That's a pretty high standard for my additions to this article. Does it also apply to yours?" As you can see in the paragraphs before that, I was trying to be as tactfully vague as possible about the exact nature of the OR violation, then User:Uhoj professed to be blissfully unaware of any OR violation, so I had no choice to be blunt and direct. When you read that, and then read this incident page, it's clear that User:Uhoj is still seething. That's why I'm seeing WP:HOUNDING from my perspective. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? As it happens, I've just taken the time to review that exchange. If turns of phrase like The version with Uhoj's edits was in clear violation of WP:NPOV in so many ways I lost count. It read like a harsh polemic, not a neutral summary of the subject, I don't have the time to teach a college freshman English course to a stranger. I strongly suggest enrolling in a community college course, Uhoj's version is unsalvageable, Here is the most egregious example of at least 40 critical errors (I lost count after that), This sentence is horribly POV, Your text is beyond salvage., It raises the question of whether you're writing OR in violation of WP:NOR., You introduce all these crazy ideas, then we never see them again. That's just terrible writing., and so very many more -- long before that purported "defensive response" -- are your idea of "tactful," then we need stronger sanctions than 0RR. What the pluperfect hell? That's what you're proffering to show how comparatively civil you are? Ravenswing 22:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  If the civility policy means that editors can never challenge bad edits in any fashion when there are numerous and obvious violations of every Wikipedia core policy (NOR, NPOV, NOT, V), then the WP project is done. We should just let all the vandals run wild with misinformation, defamation, off-topic nonsense, etc. Yes, there were over 40 critical errors; yes, User:Uhoj's preferred version read like a harsh polemic rather than a neutral analysis; and yes, many of those errors were egregious violations of WP core policies. I was merely calling it as I see it, as gently as possible. How would you have responded to those poor quality edits? Revert them with no explanation whatsoever? How would that be civil? --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  There's a difference between improving the work of others and denigrating it. For example, you added sections titled This article is terrible in a couple places about a week ago. [116][117] That's not really helpful. Uhoj (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Again, more false statements. I welcome everyone to follow those links to those recent talk page edits. Read what I actually wrote under those headings. I presented precise and accurate criticism of why those articles are terrible.

  The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern (on Talk:Military–industrial complex) of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it (as in the second link above) because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it.

  When User:Uhoj says "improving the work of others", they really mean (when read in the context of that talk page), "since you say you're smarter than me and you keep saying my writing is so awful, then you should take over this task and write a really good article" for me. And when I said no to that, because like everyone else, I have my own priorities, they initiated this incident to try to get my revert privilege revoked. That kind of retaliatory coercion is WP:HOUNDING. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  More false equivalency. It is concerning how swiftly and reflexively you jump to extremes: that you just can't seem to state your issue with someone's edits without the use of pejorative language. It is insulting to our intelligence to claim that the only conceivable alternative to spewing out insults is to let things slide altogether.

  Beyond that, your response to Uhoj below illustrates a recurring pattern: that you aren't really responding to the words someone says, but to some argument going on in your own head. I have no idea how you got from There's a difference between improving the work of others and denigrating it. For example, you added sections titled This article is terrible in a couple places about a week ago. That's not really helpful. to "The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern ... of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it (as in the second link above) because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it." He says nothing of the sort. I can read that with my own eyes. So can everyone else. Would you care to respond to the actual words others are using, rather than to some imaginary (and, apparently, inimical) version of us? Ravenswing 01:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  First you say that I am verbose.

  Then I try to be concise and simple, and use links to do the talking.

  Now you say that I am responding to imaginary words.

  Um, no. Get your story straight. When you incorrectly imply that I am engaging in the tactic of attacking a straw man, it looks like a WP:GASLIGHT issue.

  "Imaginary words" implies you did not do a close reading of User:Uhoj's own words on Talk:Military–industrial complex. So I'll have to be "verbose" again, as you like to put it, and state what should be immediately obvious to anyone reading that talk page.

  The specific words I am referring back to above are as follows: "You've added many good photos and contributed greatly to articles on law. However, you have a history of falling into this sort of vacuous sniping when straying outside that core area. Five admins have already toyed with the idea of blocking you for it. Perhaps your valuable time would be better spent in another manner. [¶] For example, with your access to a major research university library you could start contributing verifiable information to this article. Or at the very least you could remove the writing that you know to be unverifiable."

  Notice how this personal attack came after I had already reverted User:Uhoj's edits, repeatedly concurred in others' reversions of those edits, and gently explained at length how User:Uhoj had demonstrated an inability to accurately analyze and summarize the content of a specific cited source.

  Read in that context, it is a fair paraphrase to say that User:Uhoj was expressing resentment towards me (as signaled by the use of the inaccurate personal attack "vacuous sniping" and the bitterly sarcastic phrase "perhaps your valuable time would be spent in another manner") for how I keep countering their edits but refuse to actually contribute my own to this particular article. Then I responded by explaining at length how their comments were counterproductive and had completely failed to persuade me to help them write a better article (by proving that working with them would not be an enjoyable exercise).

  With all that in mind, User:Uhoj's snide attempt to fashion a false dichotomy above between "improving the work of others" and "denigrating" them (false because I chose the third option, constructive criticism) amounts to an implied admission that they did this in response to my refusal to help them with "improving" their writing. In plain English: revenge.

  WP:CIVILITY does not require editors to drop all their own priorities to actively assist other editors who clearly lack the competence to accurately summarize a textual source by writing entire articles for them (again, User:Uhoj's inability to do that is fully explained at Talk:Military–industrial complex and they have not attempted any rebuttal on the merits). If that is the case, then WP is doomed.

  That's why this is clearly a WP:HOUNDING and WP:BOOMERANG issue. It also appears to be an incident of WP:DAPE, in the sense of a campaign to drive away productive contributors, out of spite. That is why I counterproposed appropriate remedies above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  So far you have posted more than 2,750 words in this thread. This is seven pages of texts on my computer screen. You're advised to not bludgeon the process any further and let other editors speak. Northern Moonlight 06:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  First you say that I am verbose.

  Then you post a 2,839 byte comment. Narky Blert (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: I regret not having posted this before Coolcaesar responded:

  (1) I posted an addendum to talking about complaints of a condescending tone here.

  (2) Regarding:

  The foregoing statement is consistent with User:Uhoj's pattern ... of resenting how I often point out how this or that WP content is wrong but then I do not try to fix it...because I lack the competency or interest in taking the time to fix it.

  I believe you may have read that as Coolcaesar falsely accusing Uhoj of saying Coolcaesar "lack[ed] the competency or interest" to fix problems. I read it that way one time. However, if you look at the articles where comments like these occur, it's clear that Coolcaesar was referencing his/herself: Coolcaesar puts negative comments on the talk page--comments that point out bad content or edits--which offend Uhoj. Uhoj gets annoyed that Coolcaesar made the comments, yet won't fix the article directly and says sharp things like[118]:

  Coolcaesar: You've added many good photos and contributed greatly to articles on law. However, you have a history of falling into this sort of vacuous sniping when straying outside that core area. Five admins have already toyed with the idea of blocking you for it. Perhaps your valuable time would be better spent in another manner.

  For example, with your access to a major research university library you could start contributing verifiable information to this article. Or at the very least you could remove the writing that you know to be unverifiable. Uhoj

  I believe the verbose response from Coolcaesar was trying to clear up confusion about that quote.

  @Coolcaesar: Is my analysis correct? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. Thank you for clearing up that point. That is the very heart of this dispute. That's why this is a WP:HOUNDING and WP:DAPE issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar:, your text here, aside from being extremely verbose, is very hard to read due to its formatting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I replaced the additional bullet points within the same comment with line breaks to help with readability. Northern Moonlight 20:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. I think Coolcaesar's replies in this thread basically prove Uhoj’s point. Northern Moonlight 20:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note: I am now in favor of a stronger sanction given their continuous egregious behavior in this thread. Northern Moonlight 05:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, but I have no objections to a stronger sanction given his unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and (as an admin said) extremely verbose defences. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What that kind of response shows is that (1) you didn't read through the cited evidence and (2) you fell for User:Uhoj's gaslighting tactics (see WP:GASLIGHT). It's hard to set the record straight in a concise manner when the misrepresentations are so egregious, as explained above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Strongoppose siteban and possible WP:BOOMERANGcurrent indef should be sufficient per EducatedRedneck. Indeed "we see an editor successfully negotiate their parking ticket to a felony conviction."-Bgsu98. The diffs provided were unimpressive, including providing a diff from 2006. I looked at the dispute between these two editors at Military–industrial complex and I am shocked at what Uhoj has done to that article with edits like this. In that diff Uhoj put that Military–industrial complex] is "a rallying cry for those who oppose American militarism", which is not what the source says. The source says it is "a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion." Big difference. As most of us know, and as cited in that same source, the origin of the phrase is: "On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government." To call it a pejorative phrase is not consistent with the WP:RS I have reviewed. I completely agree with Coolcaesar's revert of the kinds of changes Uhoj has made to the article. Sometimes Coolcaesar was a bit harsh in comments reverting edits that definitely needed to be reversed--whether some of those were vandalism or not is hard to say. This AN/I is overblown IMHO and should be dropped. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC) [revised 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)]

  Thank you. I'm glad to see that someone took the time to actually read the parties' cited evidence. I urge other editors to do so before commenting on this incident. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  ... and, once again, you equate disagreement with your position with ignorance. Ravenswing 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I equate it with not reading the evidence closely and carefully. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @David Tornheim I can see how this might be a hot button issue for you. It combines ANI with the topic of militarism. You write about ANI in the expandable section at the top of your user page. You are affiliated with Code Pink, an organization that campaigns against militarism.

If you're interested in resolving our conflict over content, meet me at Talk:Military–industrial complex with some sources and we'll hash it out. Uhoj (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Uhoj, you would be well advised not to address people in such a condescending manner while people are reading this thread. Girth Summit _(blether) 03:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not getting it, I'm afraid. People didn't flip to arguing for a siteban because of edit conflicts. People started arguing for a siteban because Coolcaesar demonstrated repeatedly, at great length, and with great vigor, that he was utterly unsuited for a collaborative environment where his (alleged) credentials and his (self-professed) superiority did not accord him a decisive vote over all other comers. It's troubling that you're not seeing that. Ravenswing 21:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Addendum to my original post here: Although I agree with you that Coolcaesar's tone can be a bit arrogant and condescending, it sounds more to me like a tenured professor from the 1950s commenting with satirical hyperbole on the atrocious work of a Freshman. From Google AI:

Drawing inspiration from the formal yet scathing tone of 1950s academic satire, a tenured professor might have used florid, hyperbolic language when faced with a freshman's sub-par work. Rather than offering direct or constructive criticism, the professor would often resort to exaggerated, theatrical commentary to express their extreme dismay and disappointment.

• Sir, your prose has a quality of breathtaking, unvarnished chaos.
• I have seen better-argued theses on the inside of a cave wall, scrawled with a burnt stick by a neanderthal.
• This paper is a monument to all that a four-year liberal arts education is designed to prevent.

It reminds me of blow-hard attorneys as exemplified by Jackie Chiles in Seinfeld, who Google AI describes for having a “flamboyant legal style and characteristic dramatic flair, such as calling a woman's attire "lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous"” [The cute video clip compilation from Youtube was blocked. :( ]. Coolcaesar is an attorney.

I would hope anyone who saw a critiques like this would understand it is deliberately overblown and exaggerated satire with the intent to be amusing, where the writer is showing off their rhetorical skills. Some of the material and edits Coolcaesar was critiquing were indeed so bad, such as military-industrial complex, a strong negative reaction was often appropriate, so I did find the comments amusing. It's true, I wouldn't use that language or such hyperbole here, where it might not be understood to be deliberately overblown in a satirical exaggeration, because I know our policies don't have much tolerance for belittling editors, and what was ok in the 1950s is far less permissible now.

And I do notice a double-standard here where, Coolcaesar dishes it out, but then complains that Uhoj talks back in a similar condescending manner.

I do understand that editors are bothered by it; however, a 0RR or 1RR restriction is IMHO not appropriate to address the concern about talking down to other editors. I saw NO EVIDENCE of EDIT-WARRING. That’s what a 0RR or 1RR restriction is for. The problem is with comments in edit-summaries and talk pages that editors find offensive.

Note that Uhoj pinged in a select group of editors who probably complained about Coolcaesar's critiques of their edits, but failed to ping in those people in the major dispute with Coolcaesar at military-industrial complex, where the other editors agreed (like I do) with Coolcaesar that Uhoj's edits have compromised the article. See Talk:Military–industrial_complex#Neutrality_disputed here. I believe those two editors should be pinged into this discussion. I did put notice on Talk:Military–industrial_complex here.

Uhoj's sudden burst of editing in the last two years has been focused mostly on this one article.[119] I still can't figure out was the last straw that Uhoj felt the need to bring this to a noticeboard. Uhoj did not make that clear in the post; instead, Uhoj brought up a diff 10 years before Uhoj even started editing and other diffs from years ago. So I am inclined to believe Coolcaesar's testimony that disagreements at military-industrial complex are what this is really about, and the proposed 0RR sanction would give Uhoj a clear advantage by preventing Coolcaesar from reverting Uhoj's problematic edits to that article.

Note: a little over a month ago Uhoj brought a different editor from military-industrial complex who disagreed to this notice board: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#User:Volodia.woldemar_persistent_unexplained_content_removal. Perhaps they should be pinged too? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You say that I "pinged in a select group of editors". This is false. I pinged everyone who was involved in the previous two ANI discussions, just as the second discussion pinged those involved in the first.

You say "the other editors agreed (like I do) with Coolcaesar that Uhoj's edits have compromised the article". This is false. The RfC that just closed supported one of my additions and rejected Coolcaesar's position. Uhoj (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

So quick to deny that point, yet you have never denied my point that you brought this as a form of revenge. That says everything. John Henry Wigmore explained: "the non-production of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an honest and therefore fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party's cause".

Above, I counterproposed a strict but narrow TBAN against myself as the more appropriate remedy and expanded it to a broad TBAN when User:Ravenswing claimed that my proposal was too easy to evade. That is the more appropriate remedy here. Then I can get back to (1) uploading photos; (2) making constructive edits backed with full citations on various subjects that I really care about; and (3) reverting only true vandalism beyond any reasonable dispute (e.g., random word salads) only in articles I deeply care about. I contend that I should have the discretion to do so promptly, but only with the blandest and shortest of edit summaries that cast zero implication of maliciousness or destructiveness (e.g., failed verification, not correct, not supported, off-topic, etc.).

It is abundantly clear at this point that my efforts to improve articles on subjects in which I have only a tangential interest are not appreciated. So I will keep away from them.

Thousands of articles are going to slide into entropy. Not my problem any more. I will have nothing to do with them. Let the record show that User:Uhoj alone is responsible for this WP:DAPE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You disrupted my editing. I found that you have a long history of disrupting the editing of others. Your talk page made it clear that complaints are ignored as a matter of course. I even stumbled across an old list of your rhetorical tactics that was assembled by another lawyer in an attempt to urge you onto the path of productive debate. I reminded you of your previous run-ins with admins to give you one last chance to allow me to edit in peace. You continued to be disruptive, as is clear from the result of the just-closed RfC, and so I brought you here to prevent further disruption.

I initially considered proposing mandatory adherence to fixing the problem, but the more I learned, the more it became apparent that enforcement would be complex. That's when User:Yamla's suggestion of 0RR presented itself as the more practical solution.

I was steaming mad two months ago. Now I just want this to be over so I can finish working on the article where we collided. When I suggested that you start contributing to the article I was being serious, though not above poking fun at your rhetoric. I'm sure you're pretty mad now. My hope is that eventually you'll embrace collaborative editing, and who knows, maybe we'll work together in a collegial manner some day. Uhoj (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. It really helps see how we got here. It sounds like the underlying concern driving this AN/I post is this allegation of disruptive editing at military-industrial complex than the hyperbolic condescending tone that Coolcaesar is unquestionably guilty of. Thanks for your last sentence above. I replied further at your talk here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it does help everyone see how we got here. "You disrupted my editing." No, I pointed out an improper misuse of the word "caused" which stuffed unsaid words into the cited author's mouth, resulting in publication of unsupported OR in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. And I did in the most civil way possible by trying to keep it vague. I finally stated the exact nature of the violation only when I had no choice.

All User:Uhoj had to do was state an unequivocal denial. For example: "I strongly deny that I was motivated by revenge, I'm just here to build a better encyclopedia, and I'm terribly sorry if you see it that way". Nope. Didn't say that.

"I was steaming mad" admits my point: This is about revenge.

Unfortunately, the record is clear that no one is going to enforce WP:CIVILITY, WP:HOUNDING, WP:DAPE, or WP:BOOMERANG against User:Uhoj for their pattern of disruptive and uncivil conduct. The picture is coming into focus: everyone (except User:David Tornheim) prefers to throw out the editor who can write, whose tens of thousands of constructive edits have almost always been widely accepted without any complaints, in favor of the one who publishes unsupported OR in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR (again, a point which has not been refuted nor denied). And that is why the entropy is spinning out of control, because everyone who cares has been driven away.

Again, the proper approach is a broad TBAN as discussed above. If the closing admin prefers to impose 0RR instead, then here is what is going to happen.

There are about 50 to 80 articles I really care about for which I will strictly adhere to a 0RR restriction by going through talk pages to merely point out problematic edits for others to clean up. I will continue to quietly add facts and sources to articles on certain core interests. And I'll keep uploading photographs to Commons and adding thumbnails in relevant articles.

As for the rest, it's going to fall apart. Someday, if I ever get around to compiling a list of the most wildly outrageous edits that piled up when I wasn't looking, then ArbCom will have to make a finding as to who is at fault for why dozens of articles are overrun with misinformation because no one is watching them any more because of a pattern of WP:DAPE behavior. I am certain it won't be me. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

the editor who can write – Could you please stop crowing about what a faaaabulous writer you are? It's cringeworthy. EEng 03:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

What I'm alluding to by that is that on hundreds of occasions, I dug up citations to support important assertions widely known among technical experts in a field but not as widely known among the general public. We have thousands of articles on commonplace topics that are missing citations to support basic underlying principles. Much of film editing read like an unsupported personal essay before I began to read up on the subject over the past year. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California failed to mention that it was a landmark case until I added that recently. (It is widely known among American litigators.) I don't see User:Uhoj doing that.

Again, this is a driving-out scenario. If I don't have revert privilege, then fine, I'm not going to contribute to such a broad range of articles.

Is User:Uhoj going to take up the baton? Nah. They just want to take another writer off the field who is able to submit hundreds of edits without getting dinged constantly on WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:V violations. They would have necessarily seen that in reviewing my extensive edit history. "Steaming mad" is not just a reaction to my pointing out what they can't do, but their reaction to seeing what I can do: it's called envy or jealousy.

If the OP initiating this incident was a widely-respected WP longtime editor with a much higher edit count against a far broader range of articles which overlap most of mine, I wouldn't have overreacted so harshly. I would have respected the OP's right to judge me (because they would have had a clear track record of edits even better than mine) and I would know that if I have to reduce my involvement due to my civility issues, the encyclopedia is in good hands (because that OP could be counted on to take over most of my watchlist). I would have responded with great care and caution.

But we are not in that scenario. The best I can do is make my record that this is a WP:DAPE scenario, so that when this keeps happening with User:Uhoj, someone else can seek appropriate remedies. Just as others have made their record against me over the years. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, it is abundantly clear that my contributions are not appreciated. I've made my record. I was driven out.

I'm done here. I am retiring effective immediately from the English Wikipedia project. I may remain active on other Wikimedia projects, though, like Commons, where my photographs can still be of use. It has been a pleasure. I bid you farewell. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You say that I "pinged in a select group of editors". This is false. I pinged everyone who was involved in the previous two ANI discussions

@Uhoj: You did ping a select group of editors. You claim it was from two previous AN/I discussions. Which ones are you talking about? Something from 10 years before you started editing? It's clear it's not this one: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1197#User:Volodia.woldemar_persistent_unexplained_content_removal, which you recently filed against a different editor you disagreed with at military-industrial complex--the article you focus most of your editing on. No one from that AN/I was pinged here. Why not ping them in here?

I pointed out that you did not say what precipitated this dispute. This noticeboard is for urgent disputes, yet you brought up issues from 2006 and others from years ago. Nothing in the last month. What are the recent edits by Coolcaesar that are so intractable that you felt it necessary to file this complaint? Where are the warnings you placed on Coolcaesar's talk page that you would file this complaint if things didn't improve? I saw no attempt on your part to reconcile whatever dispute you still had with Coolcaesar before filing this complaint. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

David, you posted more than 1,200 words in this thread. I’d like to remind both you and User:Coolcaesar that brevity is the soul of wit, since neither of you seem to intend to stop any time soon. Northern Moonlight 21:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I never claimed to be witty.  ;) Have we adopted the etiquette of the Court of Versailles?  ;) I reply here--David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wit", in this context, means intelligence or wisdom. EEng 03:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@David Tornheim The previous ANI discussions in 2022 and 2023 are linked at the top of this discussion. Here are the links again.[120][121] No one from the discussion that you link was pinged because Coolcaesar wasn't mentioned. "This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." An explanation of why I proceeded as I did is given in my reply to Coolcaesar immediately above. Uhoj (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thx. I may reply at your talk page & link here. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Northern Moonlight and MiasmaEternal. Being overtly verbose in their responses doesn't help them either. Muffin(Spreading democracy, one edit at a time) 05:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Look, even if they save the universe, letting the behaviour continue after what amounts to a final warning back in 2016 is grounds for a clear-and-shut block. I am aware my vote doesn’t count but I thoght I would weigh in.--95.5.189.54 (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support after reading through this whole thread and Talk:Military–industrial complex, I don't see how we can let this continue. If I wasn't convinced by Uhoj, Coolcaesar's own comments sealed it. -- Mike 🗩 15:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Coolcaesar has been doing this for too long, but I would have abstained if the only evidence was the opening statement by Uhoi. It's Coolcaesar's remarks in this very thread, such as accusing an editor of sockpuppetry because they know how policies work, that make me think that at least the civility restriction is required. One of my first hundred edits was to RFPP, it's not unreasonable to think that new editors might have read the policy pages before contributing. Referring to himself as a superior editor is also highly unacceptable, as is saying that everyone who agrees with Uhoi has been gaslit and didn't read the evidence correctly. The incivility needs to stop, and this restriction will accomplish that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would also be willing to support a full siteban, mainly per Tamzin, as well as Coolcaesar's continued inability to get the point. I will also note that he retired from the project today, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still enact sanctions. It has become abundantly clear that he can't work in a collaborative project like Wikipedia without belittling other editors, and I have doubts that this can be changed. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, we certainly have seen, over the years, a great many editors who've ragequit a step ahead of sanctions, when the snow started falling hard enough. Some have actually meant it. In any event, whatever his contribution history, I'm left to wonder what landmines have been left behind. Someone so unshakeable in his utter assurance that everyone else is wrong because he alone is right doesn't often have a clean trail in his wake. Ravenswing 12:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  UCLA School of Law could probably use some attention. Coolcaesar says they're an alumnus.[122] Their conflict of interest was noted and denied in 2024.[123] However, they're the top contributor to that article. The worst bit has already been taken care of. But, that was after being reinserted with slightly different wording 10 times over the course of 5 years. I got my hands on the book that Coolcaesar later added as a source, and indeed it fails to support their version. Other problem edits are insertion of puffery from self-published sources, e.g. [124], and a potentially excessive list of notable alumni. These problems may extend to other UC schools as noted in this comment. I haven't looked into that, but there could be some truth to it given: [125]

  Coolcaesar also attempted to negatively influence articles on rival law schools, but I think this was limited to talk pages. [126][127][128]

  Style issues may exist since they took a hardline and idiosyncratic view of this aspect, referring to authors of the MOS as "morons". One thread I didn't follow is animosity toward Britain/Europe/socialism. I saw that come up a couple times.

  If there's a query tool I'd run these to find bad edits:

  • vandal, mess, pigpen, idiot, moron, incompetent, Engrish, civility, close reading, SPA, MOS, style, official, indefinite, protected, protection
  • systemic bias [129]
  • article talk page activity prior to August 2021

  Uhoj (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. As QuicoleJR points out, this is an absolutely classic case of digging oneself into a hole with tremendous enthusiasm. I've seen a few spectacular cases of an editor determined to prove the assertions of an OP at ANI, and this one is up there. The proposed restrictions may, hopefully, resolve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Coolcaesar. DoubleCross (‡) 00:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  per Coolcaesar? Longewal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely. DoubleCross (‡) 11:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. See Bushranger's post just above. EEng 16:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban per comments in this thread like:
  • I request all appropriate remedies including a sockpuppet investigation. Usually when an editor with only 1,275 edits is this well-versed in Wikipedia policy, they nearly always turn out to have had multiple accounts and have been banned multiple times before.
  • The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits.
  • If the OP initiating this incident was a widely-respected WP longtime editor with a much higher edit count against a far broader range of articles which overlap most of mine, I wouldn't have overreacted so harshly.
• These comments make clear that they do not feel they need to follow this site's policies, including WP:NPA (WP:ASPERSIONS), regarding editors who don't have high enough edit counts or do work that they respect. But that isn't how it works. We are required to follow conduct policies with respect to all of our peers, not just the ones we respect. If Coolcaesar is not willing to do that, then they are not able to be part of this collaborative editing environment, and allowing them to continue to edit would be unfair to anyone who they might interact with in the future who they don't deem worthy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't refreshed my memory on WP:NPA since April 2019 (the last time that policy came up on my talk page) and I have never seen WP:ASPERSIONS because no one has ever brought that to my attention.

I agree that the detailed ArbCom findings documented in WP:ASPERSIONS significantly affect the interpretation of WP:NPA.

Which goes back to the point raised by User:David Tornheim above: if dispute resolution had been attempted first on my talk page, all this could have been avoided.

It is fundamentally unfair to ban a user for violating ArbCom findings they have never seen before. But now that I am on fair notice, I recognize that violating WP:NPA as modified by WP:ASPERSIONS again would be grounds for a site ban. -- Coolcaesar (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignorantia juris non excusat, Mr. Lawyer. EEng 16:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, complete with wikilink, was in WP:NPA in April 2019. But I don't think it should really need to be spelled out that retaliatory claims of sockpuppetry, without any real evidence, are a personal attack. To take a real-world analogy, if you were to say you saw me run a red light, and I were to say, "Yeah, well I bet you were driving drunk, because people who say that sort of thing usually are", I think you'd agree that's a personal attack, yes? You wouldn't need someone to have shown you some rule explicitly saying it is; it's intuitively obvious. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS's specific holdings about "reasonable cause" are much more detailed then "lack evidence". It's also buried in the sense that nearly every other link in WP:NPA goes to a WP subject matter article or a WP policy article. Obviously, I would have been more cautious with my comments in the first instance if that specific link had been expressly brought to my attention much earlier. And again, this could have been avoided if the proper dispute resolution procedure had been observed to begin with. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban I don't think I've ever done that before, but Obviously, there will be times when I do need to challenge obvious vandalism goes together nicely with For example, I described culs-de-sacs as possible vandalism because I had never seen that before in my life - the very idea that if you don't know something (through your own ignorance) it must be vandalism and then attitude like I don't have the time to teach a college freshman English course to a stranger from someone who, as EEng pointed out, has a somewhat elevated opinion of their own linguistic capability, together with almost every other contribution to this discussion brings me to agree with Tamzin. They are not able to be part of this collaborative editing environment. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban this users behaviour is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Accusing all those who disagree of being ignorant, gaslit etc. is not on. That combined with their elevated opinion of their importance. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support siteban If the town "genius" designs and builds a beautiful clocktower which keeps perfect time, needs no power, displays accurate moon phases, plays a gentle glissando at the exact time of each equinox and solstice, and is hand-filligreed with the most beautiful designs of all time, yet they continue to commit the occasional arson, it might be agreed that said "genius" might be best run out of town...clocktower be damned. Further, this editor's behavior and wordsmithing recall "Poe's law," in that it is so outrageous that it seems almost like (and others have, above, seemed to explain it as) a parody of the antagonist in a badly-written roman a clef. Since our subject has, as they might write themselves, removed the inflated spherical plaything to their own abode, it seems wise to ban them and make sure their self-removal isn't quickly reversed once this "blows over."

☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎ 13:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban Given the statements in this thread, I have zero confidence that, at this time, this editor will use the criticism to improve their conduct on Wikipedia. While there is plenty to be unimpressed by, I'm especially unimpressed by the excuse of being unfamiliar with WP:ASPERSIONS. This isn't some arcane Wikipedia styling rule; nobody working in a collaborative project ought to require official notification that accusing people of things without evidence is a serious problem. I've never been in a restaurant that has signs "please don't urinate under your table" or "please refrain from setting the dining room on fire" yet I and many other people are somehow able to avoid these things because of basic human interactions we mostly know by kindergarten. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. The phrase superior writers like myself induces spontaneous ebullition of my urinary excretions. Superior to whom? Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• And once again, we see an editor successfully negotiate their parking ticket to a felony conviction. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked based on their conduct here as much as the conduct leading up to it as their behavior is utterly incompatible with a collaborative editing environment regardless of a content dispute on a Talk page. I left a further note at User_talk:Coolcaesar#Indefinitely_Blocked should they opt to unretire. This doeos not preclude continued discussion of a site ban or civility restriction, but the block was long overdue. Star Mississippi 15:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support 0RR, oppose siteban: They are now indef blocked as a regular admin action. That means, in order to edit again, they need to convince an administrator that they understand and will abide by WP:CIV. That, plus the 0RR, would be sufficient to stop any disruption. If they return, a CBAN requires a lengthy discussion with the community, costing substantial combined editor time. The in-place regular indef uses the time of a single administrator only. I don't see the advantage to a CBAN, and see potential cost should Coolcaesar come back and intend to reform. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  If they return, a CBAN requires a lengthy discussion with the community, costing substantial combined editor time – Not necessarily. If his unban application is a product of the subtle and nuanced superior writing skills on display in this very thread, he'll be unblocked lickety-split! EEng 21:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm guessing this is humor, as policy does require that it be a community discussion, as opposed to convincing only a single uninvolved administrator. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I wasn't questioning whether a community discussion would be needed. I was questioning whether substantial combined editor time would be required, given Coolcaesar's awesome powers of persuasion. Seriously. Really. Cross my heart. EEng 22:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support siteban. You know who this guy sounds like? Doug Coldwell with a JD. Compare:
  • Of course those that have made few or no Good Articles want to stop those that have made over 200 Good Articles. It looks like a case of jealousy, as those that have made few or no Good Articles wish they could do that but are not able to ... they wish to stop someone that makes a lot of Good Articles. -- Doug Coldwell [130]
  • Again, this is a driving-out scenario ... They just want to take another writer off the field who is able to submit hundreds of edits without getting dinged constantly ... it's called envy or jealousy. ... determined to spend their time driving away superior writers like myself ... The point is to drive away superior writers like myself, then no one will be left to revert their poor-quality edits. -- Coolcaesar, above in this thread. (That last bit is a comma splice, by the way -- more of that superior writing, I guess.)

Good riddance. EEng 21:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Persistent use of code golfing by User:Retana1

• Retana1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user potentially is using an AI to code golf and mass-trim and/or rewrite various band or artist articles without good reason for their edits. Even after me and FMSky had given them multiple warnings, they are refusing to communicate. They have also done this before on two other IPs, 201.191.218.184 and 201.191.218.39, before making this user account, the two whom were also given warnings for their usage of AI to code golf. HorrorLover555 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's accurate, then what's the problem? For example, this edit looks like a definite improvement. Granted, they need to respond to questions, but I'm not seeing questions, just rapidly escalating warnings. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

How is removing "elements of" an improvement? FMSky (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Because "elements of" is filler unless you mean to talk about specific elements. Not only that, the previous sentence said "elements" twice, along with being a prepositional pileup of "merged elements of... styles of...". The edit is a clear albeit incremental improvement. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

We also dont need user replacing organically written text from other users with robotic AI slop FMSky (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, changing "it's" to "its" is a clear grammatical improvement, which the OP reverted. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've since restored thatFMSky (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

How is taking it out detrimental? And calling an article "organically written text" sounds a lot like WP:OWN. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

No it doesnt, since I have never edited that article once in my life until this thread FMSky (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You misspelled "don't". jp×g🗯️ 01:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I misspelled "don't". FMSky (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

So that's 1 for "robotic slop", 0 for "organically written text"... jp×g🗯️ 10:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably because they have not used the edit summary to explain why they are making their edits. HorrorLover555 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Simplifying "which took place on" [dates] to "on" [dates] (three times in SoV's diff) strikes me as a distinct improvement. Nine words which added nothing but verbiage were removed. Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think these are AI. At most they may be AI copy edits, but I doubt it. Based on spot checking, the edits are slight enough that it's certainly plausible a human could do them in 20 minutes, the changes don't do any of the stuff AI "copy editing" usually does (rewriting into AI-ese "highlighting the significance" crap), and they contain a few stray grammatical errors that seem far more like human error than AI output, e.g. here: They were support by Belgian band Double Diamond. (That edit also took a lot more time than some of the other edits, which changed less text -- if it were AI then the differential between edit timestamps would probably be a bit more regular.)

The accusation of code golfing is just accusing bad faith. Aside from the few errors, they seem like solid copy edits to me. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Another spot check: Replacing "previously played" or "went on to play" with "played" is an improvement. Trimming an unchanging litany of [festival], which took place... [festival], which took place... [festival], which took place..." is an improvement. Replacing "decided to move" with "moved" is an improvement -- do we need to emphasize that they decided to move instead of getting kidnapped by force? Removing the bringing them more popularity to a different demographic aside from the Sims comment is even more of an improvement, as that is pure editorializing -- which, ironically, is the kind of thing AI spits out constantly, so their edit would have made the article sound less like AI slop.

Like what are we even doing here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from FMSky 212.70.112.16 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Gnomingstuff, you explained my thoughts on the edits much better than I did. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Visual editor being the visual editor.

After reviewing all edits from 26 and 27 September for punctuation or formatting mistakes, I've discovered a consistent pattern of errors concerning ''italicization'' that I would not expect from a purely human editor.

The reviewed edits always italicize trailing punctuation when adding it beside existing italicization:

diffs

This occurs in most of the reviewed edits, so for brevity only one diff has been selected as representative. Special:Diff/1313428909

−

debut album ''[[Feel the Fire (Overkill album)|Feel the Fire]]'' in

+

debut album, ''[[Feel the Fire (Overkill album)|Feel the Fire]],'' in

−

15th album, ''[[Ironbound (album)|Ironbound]]''—which is described

+

15th album, ''[[Ironbound (album)|Ironbound]],'' described

−

part of their ''Ironbound'' tour

+

part of their ''Ironbound,'' tour

−

promoting ''Ironbound'';<ref

+

promoting ''Ironbound.''<ref

Note that this pattern only holds when adding punctuation near existing italics, when adding italics near existing punctuation the punctuation is left unitalicized. Special:Diff/1313607544 demonstrates both; compare

−

and Iggy on drums. Iggy departed

+

and drummer Iggy formed the band in 1996 as ''Smack''. Iggy departed

with

−

debut album ''Grand Magus'' was

+

debut album, ''Grand Magus,'' was

and

−

eighth album, ''Sword Songs'' was

+

eighth album, ''Sword Songs,'' was

More interestingly, trailing quotes are always misplaced:

diffs

Special:Diff/1313538322:

−

The track ''Nothing Left to Fear'' features

+

The track "''Nothing Left to Fear"'' featured

Special:Diff/1313584295

−

single was published, ''Smashing Heads''. Nervosa

+

single was published, "''Smashing Heads",'' celebrating

Special:Diff/1313589980

−

the song ''Shatter'' has also

+

the song "''Shatter"'' was also

Special:Diff/1313599183

−

for the single, ''Thank You Pain'' premiered

+

for the single "''Thank You Pain",'' premiered

−

likes ''Thank You, Pain''. The

+

likes "''Thank You, Pain"''. The

Special:Diff/1313612758

−

that album, ''Today is the Day'' served as the official

+

that album, "''Today is the Day",'' was the official

Special:Diff/1313739400

−

among them also ''Gutter Ballet'', ''Believe'', ''All That I Bleed'' and ''Chance''. Jon Oliva usually

+

among them "''Gutter Ballet"'', "''Believe"'', "''All That I Bleed"'' and "''Chance"''. Oliva usually

And finally there's whatever happened in Special:Diff/1313407324:

−

titled ''Let Go of Your Sorrowful Groaning''. (While ultimately

+

titled ''Let Go of Your Sorrowful Groaning (w''hile ultimately

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like I said. The edits may look fine at first glance but they introduce tons of small errors that aren't easily spotted FMSky (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I notice that Retana exclusively uses the visual editor. I've found it's extremely easy for formatting issues like this to occur unless you go back and review the changes in the source editor. If you're not familiar with source editing(as they presumably are), it just looks like the cursor gets stuck every once in a while. Those are still errors that need correcting, but they certainly look human made to me. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 18:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If it was only punctuation inside italics I'd agree, but the trailing quotes issue exists.

If it was only an issue "sometimes" I'd agree, but it's "every time" without exception.

I cannot imagine how a human could make these very specific errors with 100% consistency, even when using the visual editor. (and I have experienced the disappearing cursor bug many times!)

For more context, I did pay close attention to all punctuation. Trailing punctuation added after "quoted words" was always added properly, never inside the quotes, only italics caused problems consistently. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing exactly what you're pointing out, but I just did a quick test in my sandbox here, following what I figure Retana's doing by deleting the characters following the italicized text and replacing them with punctuation. As you can see I encountered the exact same behavior. I'm almost certain that they simply aren't noticing that the punctuation is also getting included in the italics, the difference between italics and non-italics with punctuation is pretty dang subtle compared to letters. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm convinced, thank you. Striking. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

It just happened again on one of their newest edits here.

Original: Brink revealed the album title ''A Star-Crossed Wasteland'' on her

Their edit: Brink revealed the album title, ''A Star-Crossed Wasteland,'' on her

I used nowiki to display the italic characters. But note the comma's positioning next to the album title. This error is very consistent. Xanarki (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup, that's a Visual Editor thing, because Visual editor likes to be "smart" and automatically add formatting whenever you click too near a word with formatting. I've made these exact same errors... oh, way more times that I'd like to admit; I don't know about you, but I'm with Taffer that it's blasted difficult to spot the difference between an italicized dot and a non-italicized dot. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh come on. People make this kind of error all the time and have made it before generative AI exists. It’s a very easy error to make in a digital CMS, I remember hating having to fix the myriad ways people can screw up the interactions of punctuation and HTML tags.

I have read many AI copyedits, and almost without fail, they rewrite sections into AI tone and introduce the usual verbiage. I haven’t seen any instances of that in this user’s edits; if they’re using AI they’re reining its tendencies in much more than most people do. AI copyedits also don’t usually pare stuff down to bare bones as much as these seem to, hard to explain but I can provide an example later. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If it's not a straight visual editor thing, I can easily see it happening with a regexp replace in Notepad++ or something similar. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe they are using an LLM and have seen evidence in their edits to the contrary. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• I just looked over a couple of dozen edits of this user and am completely baffled by why this thread is here (except for the non-communication aspect). So what if they're playing "code golf"? They're obvious improvements in concision and WP:PEACOCK. I'm not a gnomer myself and don't really understand why people like to spend their time gnoming - but many gnomers often don't do as good a job as this user appears to me to be doing. If they're using AI (no idea if they are) then it's a good use of it frankly. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm also struggling to understand what "code golf" is in the context of these edits, to be honest. It seems to be used here to describe minor stylistic edits, which doesn't make sense in the way that term is normally defined. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Code golfing is an attempt to get a piece of code down to the absolute minimum where it will still work (like golfers trying for the lowest score), without regard to readability or maintainability. The people who object to Retana's edits seem to think this is what they're doing, instead of improving readability by following Strunk & White's instruction to "Omit needless words". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I can sort of see how you would get to that interpretation, but it feels very strange to me. "This person has a different editorial approach - they must be playing a weird quixotic game". Very little assumption of good faith going on here! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Restore edits

I would like to propose that we restore all of Retana1's edits that were reverted in full with some variant of "golfing" or "AI slop" in the edit summary, and that after that, if there are still problems, they can be cleaned up through normal Wikipedia processes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

No. There are others having isses with the user's edits 1, 2 3. There are too many small errors that get introduced, and for some reason they remove every instance of the word "also" in every edit they make FMSky (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

None of these changes (confusingly, you have linked to the diffs reverting the edits) appear to introduce errors upon skimming. In fact, they remove problematic material in some cases. Edit #2 removes some cliches like into the fold as well as potentially contentious claims, like large, fervent fanbase known for their violent concert behavior, that are not backed up by the sources they are cited to. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The diffs were supposed to show: "There are others having isses with the user's edits" FMSky (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Others can have all the complaints they want -- doesn't mean they're grounded. I used to be a professional copy editor, and based on these edits, I would not be surprised if this editor was also one. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

So it seems that HorrorLover555, UndergroundMan3000, Revirvlkodlaku, me, and everyone else who reverted them are all wrong and only you are correct FMSky (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

just a note: I may be missing something here but the second diff above is actually reverting the IP 201.191.218.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which hasn't been mentioned previously that I can see. I take it there were 3 IPs initially, not 2 as HorrorLover said? —Rutebega (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep you are correct, great catch... .184 was the 1st, .39 was the 2nd, .209 was the 3rd, and the registered account is the 4th (newest). Over the span of 17 days, there's been 12 warnings from users across all talk pages it seems. EDIT: It goes back further. I just found 201.198.177.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), used from Sep8 to Sep12. Xanarki (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

And let's hope that HorrorLover and FMS haven't succeeded in biting Retana out of the project altogether. That would be a great loss. 86.25.237.250 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. The mass reversions have been found to be too problematic to stand. —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. I've skimmed through the diffs linked here a few times and I'm really struggling to understand how these edits are disruptive at all. As others have noted, they often appear to be improvements. Even if the changes were AI generated(which I doubt per Gnomingstuff above), LLM generated text alone isn't prohibited provided it's otherwise policy compliant(as far as I'm aware) Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 17:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Editors who turn wordy English into plain English should be applauded. Narky Blert (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not support this. Among other things, the user above already presented proof on the italics mismatch - a pretty clear sign of an AI user and/or an AI tool.

In addition, HUNDREDS of edits and DOZENS of talk page comments...not one edit summary and not one reply from this user. Nada. Nothin'.

I'm not completely anti-AI. But this is clearly code golfing supported with AI. And anyone who denies it must be unfamiliar with the technology and methods used. Xanarki (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The lack of communication or edit summaries strikes me as an issue even if the content of the edits seem generally constructive. Regardless, communication is required and Retana hasn't made a single edit outside of article space yet. At the very least, some sort of acknowledgement on their part that some editors take issue with their contributions or that this ANI thread is happening seems warranted. I wonder if there's some sort of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU at play since they've been editing actively for the last 2 hours. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 19:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Multiple users have posted on their talk page these past few days (and, in fact, this user is connected to 2 IP accounts dating back a week or so, and no responses on those talk pages either). And, of course, the lack of any edit summaries across 150+ edits is noteworthy as well. Xanarki (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

While it's not okay that they're ignoring good-faith attempts to communicate with them... I would also be tempted to ignore FMsky's all caps WP:SHOUTING [131], apparently given in response to edits like this.[132]. FMSky also appears to refer to the editor as "it"[133], which is dehuminization I'd also not want to deal with. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes that was the edit that introduced the sentence "During long hiatus between 2016 and 2018, was inactive.", I remember it FMSky (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh no, they made a mistake in an entire edit of mostly constructive-copyedits, like trying to fix the incredibly tortured sentence {During their long hiatus between 2016 and 2018, the band not had any known activity, while some of their members joined other musical projects.? How dare they. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite FMSky's behavior (which indeed has been a little emotional at times but nothing overly aggressive given the situation) as a main factor in Retana1's overall non-communication. Especially because the non-communication has been happening since September 13th, across three accounts. Xanarki (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xanarki If you think there's reason somebody is allowed to be any degree of "aggressive" towards another editor because they're making copy edits they don't like, then I have nothing more to say to you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently working on restoring edits as suggested above. I also note that @Retana1: has returned to editing -- I hope they will be more responsive to concerns going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I got back as far as Machine Head, if anyone else wants to take over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll pick up the baton for the next hour or so, taking note of 15224's observations above. 86.25.237.250 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you wait until we've figured out if its a human or not? FMSky (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, will do. 86.25.237.250 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you restoring every single one of their edits and not only the ones suggested here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1314274856? FMSky (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I said "some variant", and an assertion of "WP:DE" or "per IP sock" isn't much more useful than the above. You'll notice that on articles where you did substantial work after reverting, I left it alone. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: When restoring edits like Special:Diff/1314294692 or edits similar to those in the trailing quotes are always misplaced diffs, please note MOS:T. I am annoyed that Retana1 is combining quotation marks and italics. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Quick summary on if user is human or AI/AI-assisted

We've got 200+ edits in the span of just a few days, a mechanical AI-like style towards grammar, editing whole articles instead of just little sections (usually in one big edit or divided between a few edits in a row), no edit summaries after 200+ edits, non-stop edits for hours & hours at a time, no replies after dozens of talk page messages between three accounts, weird comma/italics formatting quirks that the other user brought up, and a hyperfocus on music yet nothing else (not necessarily a bad thing but still worth noting).

In contrast...other users are saying that this account's focus on grammar corrections reflect a professional-type editor, the aforementioned formatting quirks might be due to interface errors, the user isn't responding due to maybe using mobile or they're not familiar with Wiki's system (yet they're familiar enough to make 200+ edits), and that many of the edits aren't factually wrong or even harmful for that matter.

I personally lean towards my 1st paragraph, as I'm struggling to see how the 2nd paragraph outweighs/outreasons the 1st. If I'm missing anything super crucial (both sides), please bring it up. Xanarki (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was brought up as an idea, but mobile edits should have either the mobile web edit or mobile edit tags (or any other mobile tag) AFAIK. None of their edits have those tags, just the visual editor tag. Unless they are using a version of Wikipedia on mobile that both has the bug and doesn't tag the edits correctly, I doubt they are editing via mobile. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Having dealt with a lot of AI generated slop both on and off Wikipedia, I'm really not seeing evidence of it in those edits. Gnomingstuff explained everything better than I could, but there's none of the hallmarks of LLM output and the timing doesn't suggest bot generation either. I addressed the formatting errors earlier, but I'll reiterate that it really looks to me like a newbie who doesn't know how source text interacts with the visual editor.

Even if there is LLM use here, that on it's own isn't banned. It can indicate other problems, but there's no policy explicitly prohibiting edits assisted by AI.

As far as the lack of communication, they're not the first editor to ignores notifications and see summaries as a suggestion, nor will they be the last. I'm taking back my suggestion of THEYCANTHEARYOU per 45dogs, it looks like they probably just aren't looking at anything that isn't an article, which is its own problem. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 23:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO, I think this is different than just typical AI slop/output. It seems consistent with automation-like copyediting (maybe an AI prompt or some sort of hyperfocused script), crafted by a human of course, in order to mass-edit pages. This is why many of the edits are the same - the word "also" removed dang near everywhere, removing "the" before multiple nouns (even when it doesn't make sense), recurring italics/comma thing, etc. It's very mechanical and repetitive.

Overall though, the behavioral issues (200+ edits on new account, no summaries, no replies, consistent corrections AND errors which ultimately wastes editors' time, etc.) should be enough to warrant some sort of action taken. Regardless if the user is AI or not. Xanarki (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#VisualEditor_italic_commas. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this as any different from someone adopting a typo. Some problems are just obvious to spot and easy to fix.

We also don't know which articles this user decided not to edit, which "also"s they decided were fine, etc. The edits are spaced out enough for that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

We've got 200+ edits in the span of just a few days, a mechanical AI-like style towards grammar, editing whole articles instead of just little sections (usually in one big edit or divided between a few edits in a row), no edit summaries after 200+ edits, non-stop edits for hours & hours at a time, no replies after dozens of talk page messages between three accounts, weird comma/italics formatting quirks that the other user brought up, and a hyperfocus on music yet nothing else

I have no involvement in this, just noticed this and wanted to point out that it doesn't really look like any of the points mentioned in WP:AICATCH. As for the individual points:

• We've got 200+ edits in the span of just a few days - It is very easy for someone to make 200+ edits in a few days. Granted, they might have to spend time on 200 major copyedits, but it's also not impossible to do, even manually.
• a mechanical AI-like style towards grammar - At least two users have pointed out diffs above that are pretty big indications of, at the very least, human error. An AI would typically not accidentally come up with a verb-tense mismatch or italicize just one letter of a word.
• editing whole articles instead of just little sections (usually in one big edit or divided between a few edits in a row) - This isn't a hallmark of an AI. Many editors do this, and there's no requirement that editors only edit "little sections".
• no edit summaries after 200+ edits - This seems more like a Wikipedia:Communication is required issue.
• non-stop edits for hours & hours at a time - Not problematic and, in fact, actually points against this being an AI. If this editor was using an AI, you'd expect these 200+ edits to be rapid-fire edits spread across many different pages. Instead, what they did is make many closely-spaced small edits to the same page (e.g. these 31 consecutive edits to one page), or more widely spaced-out edits to multiple pages.
• no replies after dozens of talk page messages between three accounts - This is also a communication issue. Not an AI issue.
• weird comma/italics formatting quirks that the other user brought up - As mentioned above, it's very easy to open up VisualEditor, type up something in italics or bold, and type some punctuation without remembering to switch back to normal text.
• and a hyperfocus on music yet nothing else - This is a hallmark of a WP:SPA, not AI.

TL;DR - the main issue is the lack of communication, but I don't see much evidence of AI use, and in fact there's some evidence to the contrary. Also noting that this is a (Non-administrator comment). – Epicgenius (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that each individual point has a valid counter (except it's purely my and a few others opinion that the VisualEditor quirks aren't due to human error). But taken collectively, as a whole, everything paints a cumulative picture...I also forgot to list off that the user is less than a month new to Wikipedia which is notable in itself too.

Even though the AI question is a bit concerning, the more appropriate route now is to simply have some sort of communication with them, to any degree. Otherwise we'll be spinning in speculative circles all day. Xanarki (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but when reviewing their edits for punctuation and formatting errors, I saw no signs of LLM assistance. The content of their edits in general displayed a level of accuracy, restraint and consistency I wouldn't expect from an LLM prompted to do this kind of copy editing. I've also seen them make a rare typo and add information that a model would not. Their editing pattern is grueling and admittedly somewhat unusual, but it appears that they have a genuine interest in music copy editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I am really not fond of the recent Annie trend where noobs will kind of randomly be accused of being "AI" on the basis of, essentially, presumption. jp×g🗯️ 10:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Grammar is too perfect = AI. Grammar has errors = also AI. User displays no knowledge of policy = obviously AI. User knows too much about policy = definitely AI. Etc etc jp×g🗯️ 10:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

On that subject, I'd just like to anecdotally note that I've seen LLMs make mistakes such as spelling errors or missing out words when generating prose. I think some people assume that robots don't do this. It's unrelated to this case (I don't want this to be taken as presented evidence), but good to be aware of. 207.11.240.2 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't overlook: this user has made too few edits = AI, and this user has made too many edits = AI. Narky Blert (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The problematic trend is more like: Grammar is too perfect = AI. Grammar has errors = not AI. User displays no knowledge of policy = definitely AI. User knows too much about policy = obvious sock. user has made too few edits = AI, and user has made too many edits = PGAME. Too many diffs = hound. Not enough diffs = aspersions.

On a more positive note, this thread has convinced me to fix the grammatical errors instead of reverting. 173.206.37.177 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: partial block from article space

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

---

Boy this is an interesting one. Most of the edits seem more or less okay (I'm baffled by the code golf thing...we're not writing a program here), but a lot of very odd irregularities have been pointed out, and I think the "overall picture" alluded to above points to something at least a little fishy going on here. The lack of response from the user is really kind of a problem too. Thus I propose a partial block from article space until they can explain just what they're doing and how they're doing it to the satisfaction of the community. I also note that this discussion has been dragging on a while, and the user is still doing this as of my writing this proposal. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The lack of response is a problem, but the edits don't seem to be to be problematic enough at this point to shut them down. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is this user now basically allowed to run rampant without ever having to address anything at all? Am I allowed to revert if they remove large chunks of information without plausible reason? FMSky (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Mainly on the grounds that the user received over a dozen warnings with no replies + showing no intention on changing and/or communicating + made hundreds of edits with no summaries (a summary isn't needed for most of these grammar-related edits but 200+ with 0 context is the notable factor). The whole "AI or not" thing can be cast aside in the meantime IMO. Xanarki (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Sure, there are some improvements being made but the many small errors getting introduced makes this user an overall net negative IMO, unless someone wants to clean up behind them the whole time --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  You have made this claim several times, but you have not produced any examples of these "small errors." Ironically the people defending this guy have pointed out more errors than you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  the people defending this guy have pointed out more errors then you should be aware of them FMSky (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  So fix them. After all, you do it for the errors you introduce. Well, except when you don't -- congrats to the new Mr. Ghiggino2 on his name change. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  If someone makes 300 edits, and 50% (maybe more/less - this is just a rough figure) of the edits contain the same exact mechanical-like errors, but the user doesn't change their habits or communicate in any way...then, the behavior continues; thus, the folks opposing this p-block would rather sit back and just "let it happen" or (as FMSky stated) walk behind them the entire time? WP:You have a right to remain silent does not apply here. WP:Communication is required has already been stated a few times.

  I apologize that I can't grasp the opposing users' point of view. But the lack of suggestions towards progression and overall indifference from them isn't helping matters. Xanarki (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose while I'd like to see the user start communicating, I disagree that their contributions are a net negative. A pblock over this seems excessive, though I struggle to think of what else admins could do to get Retana to acknowledge the messages being sent to them. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 20:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support while there isn't anything wrong with their edits on paper (at least from what has been discussed here), the lack of any communication doesn't fill me with confidence on the future of their editing. What they are doing is relatively uncontroversial, however I worry that they would bring this same lack of communication to issues which require communication. I also disagree that their contributions are a net negative; I believe they could be a valuable contributor, if they were to communicate. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 21:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support: While constantly replacing the word "by" with "with" after the word "replaced" in certain sentences frustrates me because it doesn't really sound like correct English to me (for example, he/she would change from "...he was replaced by..." to "...he was replaced with..." or "...they were replaced by..." to "...they were replaced with..."), this person knows at least some proper English and does kind of a good job trimming off some unnecessary words or sentences (like on Sepultura for example, to which its article some sentences made by him/her, me, FMSky, UnderIrae, etc. kept intact). But yes, I agree with some of the other users above that it would be nice if he/she communicates at least once by proving that he/she's not a bot, an AI-generated user or whatever. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Weak support though I would like to give Retana the chance to explain themselves or to at least communicate to confirm whether they are using an AI or not. Beyond the attempts of trying to reach out to the user through their talk page, I feel like the only way to get their attention may be a temporary partial block from article space. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The non-communication is admittedly and undoubtedly not good. But that's a final warning issue. The fact is their edits are pretty good to very good and the rationale for the objection to them is weak to non-existent. This isn't an ANI issue and should not be here in the first place. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support Solely on the lack of communication issue; communication is required to contribute here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a policy that says communication is required, if the user isn't noticeably disruptive? Longewal (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4A: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits. This is true whether or not there is an issue with the underlying edits. See also the explanatory essay WP:Communication is required. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation Longewal (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose We shouldn't penalize a helpful volunteer just because they're not responsive to notifications when they haven't caused any disruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longewal (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Given that they have yet to edit a single page outside of namespace, it seems plausible that they just haven't found their user talk page. Communication is required, so I have p-blocked them for now, with a note that any admin should feel free to lift this the moment they begin communicating. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Taffer. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Strong (retroactive) oppose for reasons I have already stated. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support to encourage communication: Communication is required to edit collaboratively, once the user responds then the block should be removed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior by Jesuliz

Jesuliz (talk · contribs) has been disrupting several ice hockey-related pages with unexplained reverts – Aleksander Barkov (ignores WP:OVERLINK like in this reversion, which also includes a "nice edit summary"), NHL All-Star Game (ignores WP:NCIH like in this reversion) and Teemu Selänne (ignores WP:PRIMARY like in this reversion and also reverts other content without any explanation in this edit). I also notified WikiProject Ice Hockey of this editor's behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Teemu Selänne and other disruption. This editor has been warned multiple times on his talk page, but all of those notices were removed by the editor (even friendly suggestion like this). This editor showed a WP:NOTHERE behavior more than once by continued disruption and ignoring policies/guidelines. – sbaio 17:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This has definitely been an edit war, and despite multiple warnings to their talk page, they have not budged on the issue one bit [134]. See Aleksander Barkov: Revision history for the main edit war. Conyo14 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Block Request for Leopard269

• Leopard269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user @Leopard269: has deleted huge amounts of content from multiple articles, notably the "Kisii people" and several other articles, without providing good reasons for content removal. This amounts to vandalism of the affected articles. The user Leopard269 could have made improvements to the content rather than deleting it. It is more constructive to make improvements to articles rather than delete content that doesn't suit his opinions and interpretations of Bantu languages. All edits made by this user need review due to a lack of good faith in their edits. 47.44.74.67 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor in user talk page. I have done so for you. Northern Moonlight 20:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please use the article talk page to talk it out instead of asking for a block. Note that removing unsourced content or texts not supported by the cited source is most definitely not vandalism. Northern Moonlight 20:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

At the very least, this edit seems completely justified. The part removed contained no sourcing whatsoever. But yeah, this seems like a content dispute. Also, if there are further issues, the diffs should be provided. Editors are not expected to go searching for the issues; you must bring the diffs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 20:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

if you look back on who made those edits it was a person called "nyanzacushite" who believed his kisii tribe were truly cushitic people and that the widely accepted bantu language group and bantu expanion were western lies. he just used his personal opinions. he used many sources that didnt even support his claims in the hope that no one else will read them and realize they're false. that page is a mess. Leopard269 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535

Can someone tell User:Pi.1415926535 to stick to WP:MOS and to convention? 161.29.202.46 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1202#Disruptive editing by 161.29.202.46. The IP has something against {{commonscat inline}} but refuses to explain what is supposedly wrong with it, and has been making other nonsense edits like removing stub tags from a stub. It's time for a boomerang to stop the disruption. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have explained it but `you are not understanding the explanation. Also~, a short article it not necessarily a stub article. There are user essays about it. You HAVE to make yourself familiar with the nuances of editing.161.29.202.46 (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Not everyone follows user essays, and they don't have to because they're not policies or guidelines. QwertyForest (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

True, but it help to set best prictice in the absence of policiy. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

\ 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The IP's explanation apparently consists of telling me Are you blind and as thick as two short planks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

IP, your explanations are inadequate. No, we can't all see whitespace or some unspecified icon in "the wrong place" as you can; we may be using a different skin from you (registered editors have a choice of not using the default), and chances are we're on a different device with different browser settings. (I see you've also been reinstating "30em" for reference display; it's now better practice to let the browser dictate that.) "Too much whitespace" is a notorious sign that what you see is not what others see. The earlier thread revealed that there is a display problem with one template, but you utterly failed to point out what the problem was. And none of us can figure out what your beef is with Commonscat inline; is it perhaps that it should have a dot??? Explain, or your edits will be indistinguishable from edit warring for the sake of edit warring, and nobody will appreciate and fix the issues you have spotted. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

If there is a fault that I can see and editors can't then there is a fault. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Bikram32 - still no sourcing

Following on from this closed ANI regarding Bikram32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in which @Woodroar said @Bikram32 hasn't edited after replying here. If they go back to adding unsourced claims, I would propose a block until they commit to sourcing all of their contributions—and indef if they don't follow through..

Since then, they have received yet another warning for no sources on their talk page, to which they responded with … the only thing is that I don't know how to add verified source. They’ve been pointed to the various links on their talk page, and haven’t responded since… yet again today, they’ve continued adding unsourced content - [135]. What can be done here? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Jetstreamer as they left the note on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I've just indefinitely blocked them from editing mainspace and explained what they need to do (Special:Diff/1314533798). Hopefully they'll comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Editor successfully gaming the system to edit ECR topics

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

---

• Exper-maelstrom

This user has been editing ECP areas of caste and military history of India since the beginning, when their edits were reverted and they were told to get extended confirmed before they could edit here. They have gamed their way into getting that right by making 100s of insignificant edits to Cheiro,[136][137] Hadapsar, Balaji Kunjar,[138][139] Peshwa,[140][141] Patwardhan dynasty[142][143] and more. Interesting to note that the last three of these are also related to Indian military history, and he was breaching ECP restriction while editing these topics despite warning.[144] Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I was in the middle of making the same report at AE and edit conflicted when I went to notify the user. An admin advised me that WP:AE would be a more appropriate forum for this, so I opened my report there at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Exper-maelstrom. I'm not sure whether ANI or AE is more appropriate, but one of the threads should probably be closed. MCE89 (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Laxmi Narayan Maharana yet again

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

---

Laxmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was a redirect to Lakshmi. Now an article about Laxmi Narayan Maharana.

• wp:Articles for deletion/Laxmi Narayan – Laxmi Narayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) closed as redirect 28 Sep 25
• wp:Articles for deletion/LaxmiNarayan – LaxmiNarayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) closed as redirect 1 Oct 25

Revert and EC protect? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at the article, and it has an AI-generated feel to it (especially the Awards and recognition section). MiasmaEternal☎ 05:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Page deleted as recreation and redirect EC protected Mfield (Oi!) 05:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Possible socks blanking article and replacing with LLM/biased content

This is likely too tame for SPI but these two accounts began blanking several subsections of Transmigration program and replaced it with possible AI generated/non neutral content. Earliest account Ayuandin first diff was reverted. Same user made the same edit diff 2, for it to be reverted again. Second account Paeswoke recently edited the same article with the same content. Both accounts edit summaries seem similar. WP:BADSOCK violation? edit overlap — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2step (talk • contribs)

This is probably better at SPI, even if it is 'too tame'. I don't think ANI is the correct place for investigating socks. Also please sign. 2A04:7F80:62:D1F5:4F8:6AD1:CD7D:AC68 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Not ruling out sockpuppets, but the reason the edit summaries sound similar is most likely because they're both probably generated by AI. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Keljou

Keljou (talk · contribs) appears to be a for the most part, single-purpose account, with a history of disruptive editing on Kimi Antonelli dating back to 7th August. Several attempts have been made to reason with them by six editors across the article's and their own talk pages, as can be seen here, here, here, here and here. They, however, have refused to listen and instead taken to calling the page biased fan service.

Several of their edits have:

• Been in violation of WP:POINT, as can be observed by the summaries and corresponding discussion on the article's talk page: [145], [146] and [147].

• Added unsourced, original research or synthesis: [148], [149], [150], [151] and [152]

• Stopped just short of an WP:EW:
  • Incident 1: [153] and [154]
  • Incident 2: [155], [156] and [157]
  • Incident 3: [158] and [159]
  • UPDATE (Incident 4): [160] and [161]

Many of these edits have also been POV-pushing. I think a ban of some sort ought to be applied. I would have said a top ban before, however, following their refusal to communicate civily, I would recommend that this be expanded.

UPDATE: They have also taken to insults now as can be seen here and here where they said "There were only three people in some edits, if three or five Nazis in Auschwitz were asked they would have answered that they were right. So yes, it is a dictatorship. Basically nobody can oppose the point of view of those three or five people" and called us dishonest and abusing our powers for disagreeing with their perspective.MadelynnSienna (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @SSSB, @Mb2437 and @Cerebral726 as they have been actively involved in this discussion on the talk page and might be able to provide additional insights. MadelynnSienna (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, actually MadelynnSienna has unfairly deleted edits because she clearly is a fan of Kimi Antonelli. For example, she forced a 1980s photo in a 2025 driver page born in 2006 with no real explanation, as using the number of a past driver isn't enough to put a 1980s photo (then we should put lots of pics, people can view Senna's pics in his page, not in Antinelli's). Another example, MadelynSienna deleted my edit because she claims that George Russell who was ill and with heavy flu wasn't affected at all in the racing weekend in Baku, despite the sources I linked said he had to skip the media day for illness, he nearly had to retire and reserve driver Bottas was called to be replace him, and Russell said he was so affected that if it was in Singapore he wouldn't have completed the race. It's clear and obvious that Russell was affected by heavy flu, how come MadelynnSienna can delete my edits accusing me of wpoint or other unfair accusations? Come on, it's clear that she allows only her viewpoint. I'm new and beginning now to write, that's why I mainly edited Kimi Antonelli because I have Italian origins so I know about him but I'm editing also other pages, both in English and Italian. I hope Wikipedia isn't a group of privileged users who can rule despite being wrong on new users. Thanks Keljou (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

As can be seen across this thread, @Keljou calls anyone who disagrees with their edits a fan.

Just to clarify, I am not a Kimi Antonelli fan, I edit across Formula 1 pages, and moreover, across different categories on Wikipedia including Music, TV Shows, etc. Furthermore, I have clearly explained why I reverted the edit removing the picture here [162] and advised that should they disagree, they could reach a consensus on the talk page, which they did not.

As for the edit on George Russell's illnesses, I clearly explained my reasoning here [163], [164] and [165]. Several other editors also agreed with this. We reached a consensus that should a website clearly correlate the illness to Russell, which hadn't yet been shown in any of their sources, be added by the @Keljou we would leave it on the page. Once again, they have yet to provide such a reference and instead simply kept reverting their edits.

The users edit history on Wikipedia English only shows work on Kimi Antonelli, Ariel Elkin and George Russell (racing driver) at the time of the initial report. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This user has continually proved that they are WP:NOTHERE. They have continually attempted to edit war—despite several user page warnings and unanimous community consensus—and POV-push on a single article, levying accusations of “fan bias” whenever they are disagreed with, even going as far as to say they would “report me to Wikipedia” with no basis. They seem wholly unable to constructively discuss matters with the community or understand basic policy (WP:NPOV and WP:OR appear to be a sticking point). Their editing history is almost exclusively derisive edits to Kimi Antonelli, with a few regarding the subject at George Russell (racing driver) and whatever point this was meant to make. Their comment above proves the point fairly aptly—“clearly a fan”, “allows only her viewpoint”, “a group of privileged users”, as well as their lengthy and continued misunderstanding of why those particular edits were WP:SYNTH. I would propose a topic ban. MB2437 12:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Mb2437 is apparently a fan of Kimi Antonelli as he only allows edits that support his view. For example, he claims that heavy flu didn't affect Russell's performance while it's obvious the contrary. Even providing sourced links that proved Russell was almost going to retire, Mb2437 still deleted the edits and he claimed that Russell wasn't affected at all by having flu. Another example, he added a long quote from a magazine that praises Antonelli as "future champion", but he doesn't allow quotes from F1 magazines and drivers who say Antonelli isn't that good. So Mb2437 deletes all the magazine quotes who are against his point of view, but he imposes the quotes from magazines that suit his own point of view. Given these facts, why should I have stayed silent instead of trying to add some objective edits? That's what I tried to do, if it's not allowed by Wikipedia I apologise. I did what I thought was right Keljou (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The quotes you added were both unreliably sourced and, at times, outright misinformation.[166][167][168][169] You have had this explained to you clearly by multiple users. MB2437 13:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No , you're utterly lying. I put sourced edits of famous sports magazines, and after you deleted them I put other sources as reliable as the first ones, you deleted all of them because you only find excuses. You delete edits that aren't your point of view and you make up excuses. For example you deleted Italy's most famous internet news site Keljou (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to back up your accusations. MB2437 13:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For example you deleted my edit on Kimi Antonelli page claiming Fanpage.it isn't reliable, while it's Italy's most viewed news site https://www.fanpage.it/cultura/rapporto-reuters-fanpage-al-primo-posto-tra-i-siti-di-informazioni-piu-consultati/ Keljou (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, this edit. Yet another example of SYNTH. The unreliable source in question was WP:LADBIBLE. MB2437 13:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Seconded! There response to this comment only furthers this point. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to edit war: [170]. They are clearly unable or unwilling to listen to warnings about their behavior. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

So the "behaviour" you suggest is to just accept the point of view of two or three users, despite them being wrong. Three users can impose their dictatorship because they think they rule and must be right. Nobody can edit because those three users always say the edits are wrong. That's the opposite of the point of Wikipedia Keljou (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS underpins the point of Wikipedia. MB2437 13:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus has a point if there are many users, with only three people they turn to dictators. Three people can delete all edits with the excuse they're against the edits Keljou (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Six different individuals, the only ones involved in this matter, have disagreed with your edits. The only way to reach a consensus on Wikipedia is to post on the Talk page and comment there, which has happened and not gone in your favour. That is not a dictatorship. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There were only three people in some edits, if three or five Nazis in Auschwitz were asked they would have answered that they were right. So yes, it is a dictatorship. Basically nobody can oppose the point of view of those three or five people Keljou (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing us to Nazis in Auschwitz? MB2437 13:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No I'm explaining the point that just because three or five people make a claim it doesn't mean they're right. I quoted Nazis as it's the most evident example of a wrong stance that was actually approved if you asked them Keljou (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You made an abundantly clear argument that we are running a Nazi-esque dictatorship. Community consensus is not totalitarian; any one of the 50 million other users on English Wikipedia are always free to agree with you. I would strike your comment. MB2437 14:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There are only three people in the page who write edits, that's how you can delete all edits you don't agree on. As three people can impose their unfair agenda that's similar to dictatorship Keljou (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

We have deleted your edits citing relevant Wikipedia policy, with the addendum that you may revert them as long as you add reliable sources or reach a conensus (where it involves the blatant removal of content without reason). That is not a dictatorship or the imposition of an agenda. MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

No need for any more evidence or comments clearly, just wait for an admin and be done with it. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest you stop here, Wikipedia has strong policies on insulting editors (as you did here by comparing us to Nazis). MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't, I quoted an historical example where if you asked three or five people they would have backed a wrong stance. You said it's not dictatorial just because you are three people, so I gave an example of a dictatorial system that was backed by people. I didn't say you are Nazi, that's your opportunistic interpretation just to accuse me Keljou (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A comparison to Nazis and Auschwitz is incredibly uncalled for under any circumstances. You may not have called us Nazis directly, but you certainly alluded to it - alongside calling us dictators, dishonest and abusing our powers. The general policy is comment on the edits, not the editor. Irrespective, as previously said, an admin will review this conversation and come to their own decision regarding what needs to happen. I personally propose a ban of some form. MadelynnSienna (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Seven different users have reverted your edits over the previous month, not three dictators. MB2437 13:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Try reading any of these, perhaps: WP:CONSENSUS WP:EDITWARRING WP:BRD Wikipedia:Verifiability. Making your point without reverting to accusations of fan bias, and point-y, non constructive edits could get you where you want. You don't seem capable of doing that, hence why you've been brought here. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding to @Mb2437 and @Cerebral726, several editors have tried to start discussions with you to reach a consensus, however, rather than maintain an editing moratorium on those matters, yet you have continued to edit war and pov-push on the page. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Because you were plainly wrong, such as deleting the edits that proved Russell was affected by flu. He even told journalists that in Singapore he would have retired, yet you always delete the edits with the excuse that you "have consensus" which is actually just three people Keljou (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

George Russell said that he was close to not racing because he was ill, but eventually did participate. Your source says he believed his race would have been impacted at a more intensive circuit like Singapore, but was not because it was Baku. Regardless, none of this discusses why this is relevant to Kimi Antonelli's page. As you have been told several times, that is WP:SYNTH. If you can find a WP:RS linking Russell's illness and subsequent performance to Antonelli, we will add it. So far, you have failed to do that and hence your edits have been removed. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Russell being ill obviously affected his performance and the level of performance of Antonelli, as he was unable to beat his teammate with heavy flu on the same car. In F1 the only benchmark of a driver's performance is his teammate because the car is dominant. So it must be noted when you rate Antonelli's performance, in the same way you added that Antonelli outqualified Russell. This is obvious, your denial is unfair and biased because you compare Antonelli to Russell only when it suits your agenda Keljou (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Russell being ill obviously

The moment you decided it was "obvious" was where you made a mistake. You cannot substitute your personal opinion for citations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Also to clarify, this is not an edit I have asked you to "have a consensus" on, but rather one I have asked you to find a more appropriate source for, which you are yet to do. MadelynnSienna (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I already know your tricks, if I edited it again you would have said "he's war editing, he should be banned". Really there's no point discussing with people who are dishonest and abuse their powers in Wikipedia Keljou (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for continuing to double down on the personal attacks in this very thread, as well as the edit warring behavior. I find the POINT-related evidence less immediately persuasive (although that may just be because it's more complicated and would require further study of the relevant discussions to understand). I'm intending the block as a stopgap measure to address the inability to stop with the personal attacks, which rather absurdly rise to Reductio ad Hitlerum in the context of this ANI thread about a dispute that originally arose from disagreements regarding an F1 biography. If editors want to see a sanction imposed as a WP:CBAN or otherwise bringing in the POINT concerns more substantially, they should start a straw poll in a subsection of this thread; otherwise the discussion can be archived in a few days. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) Good block. You've saved me the trouble of reframing my thoughts into something restrainedly civil. Narky Blert (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Grossly inflammatory user talk page post by User:Anythingyouwant

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

See User talk:D.wright01, where, in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of a sourced description of an individual as a white nationalist', Anythingyouwant added the following comment:

Thank you, D.Wright, for bringing this matter to the attention of BLPN. I have commented there. I regret that these discussions often seem like a bench trial conducted by hanging judges. Hopefully, new encyclopedias like Grokipedia will solve (or at least ameliorate) this problem. I have advocated at Wikipedia innumerable times for a system where disputes are settled by arbitrarily selected Wikipedians, but instead we get habitual self-appointed judges who are often pursuing an agenda, travel in packs, or at least are unusually tenacious about influencing the outcomes of as many disputes as possible. Apparently, User:Jimbo Wales wants it that way. I’m speaking up in this particular case, because labeling a person as a white nationalist seems about as disparaging as labeling the person as a racist or a fascist, and —- given the recent spate of “anti-fascist” assassinations —- could amount to a death sentence quite literally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC) [171]

Now clearly Anythingyouwant is as entitled to make negative comments about Wikipedia and its processes as anyone else (I've made quite a few myself), but in my opinion the final sentence goes well beyond the bounds of mere commentary, and amounts to an accusation that Wikipedia is actively inciting political violence through adding sourced encyclopaedic content. White nationalism is real. So is racism. So is fascism. And they are real because individuals hold those views. And it is the duty of an online encyclopaedia to report them, where the evidence supports it. On that basis, I can only conclude that Anythingyouwant's position on this is not only grossly inflammatory and offensive, but entirely incompatible with the objectives of Wikipedia. How exactly we should deal with this will clearly depend at least in part on how Anythingyouwant responds here: maybe the community might consider an unequivocal retraction of the absurd insinuations regarding Wikipedia content inciting murder to be sufficient, maybe not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm amazed that an editor who has been around for long enough to make 91k edits would post something as wrong headed and patently incorrect as "given the recent spate of “anti-fascist” assassinations". TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

As am I. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Amended here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Andy says, this was at user talk, which was deliberate on my part, there is generally more latitude at user talk than, say, article talk. Andy objects only to the last sentence: “I’m speaking up in this particular case, because labeling a person as a white nationalist seems about as disparaging as labeling the person as a racist or a fascist, and —- given the recent spate of ‘anti-fascist’ assassinations —- could amount to a death sentence quite literally.” Andy says I accused someone of incitement. Not so. If that’s what I meant then I would have said so. If Wikipedia identifies someone as a fascist, then that person’s safety is implicated whether any Wikipedia editor intended that result or not. And I never meant to suggest (or did suggest) that Andy intended it. What I suggested is that Andy made a very sloppy comment in favor of Wikipedia identifying a person as a white nationalist based on what Andy wrongly and sloppily assumed was self-identification. Actually, I didn’t specifically mention Andy, but I am happy to retract the implication of his name if he will retract his sloppy comment at BLPN saying that a living person self-identified as a white nationalist. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't 'sloppily assume' anything. I went by what cited sources said. Whether the sources were correct in their claim that this was self-ascribed is still open to question, and not particularly relevant since we don't require self-description to apply such terms anyway. But that is entirely beside the point, and not a question for WP:ANI. You suggested, and still seem to be suggesting, that identifying individuals as 'white nationalist' etc may result in political violence, and that Wikipedia content is -intentionally or otherwise - endangering said individuals. That isn't an attack on me, it is an attack on the core principles of Wikipedia, and on more general principles of honest reporting and open political discourse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that call him a white nationalist. Wikipedia is not in the business of laundering the reputation of far-right youtubers. If this the way you feel about your fellow editors maybe you should just go to Grokipedia as you appear to be increasingly WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I have addressed alleged self-identification in a particular YouTube video tweet. Andy said it happened, I say it didn’t. This has nothing to do with anything else, or any other alleged sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone link the YouTube video here with a timestamp? Discussion is split across multiple places so I'm having trouble tracking it down. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The Youtube videotweet seems something of a cul-de-sac. People with extremist views lie about the categorization of those views all the time. This makes his subsequent disavowal something of a WP:MANDY situation. There are multiple reliable sources that identify this man as a white nationalist. That should be sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

With this being said here is a link to the tweet in question which has video of the man calling himself a white nationalist. Anythingyouwant claiming that this video doesn't exist is thus something of a surprise. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

"attended by a white nationalist, yours truly" sounds like a joke.

Don't think about self would apply here.

This was mostly my own curiosity.

The other sources calling him one is more then enough to state him as one. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Here’s the tweet in question: https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1517480098101796864 And here’s what I said about it at BLPN: “you can clearly hear laughter in response to his remark. So we cannot tell from this snippet whether it was serious or not. Further: “You might also encounter ‘yours truly’ outside the context of a letter or email. The phrase is often used in a facetious way to refer to oneself….It’s considered quite informal and almost never used in a serious context.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the topic of this ANI thread, which is your grossly inflammatory attempts to implicate Wikipedia - intentionally or otherwise - in political violence. Are you going to retract that, unequivocally, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is silly. You're claiming we can't call a white nationalist one if he's laughing about it when he admits it? That's way outside our normal sourcing standards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources brand him as a white nationalist, then by all means we should report that in his BLP (if any) with appropriate attention to MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY. But this tweet is useless, he was evidently not being serious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

And how exactly is that compatible with labeling a person as a white nationalist seems about as disparaging as labeling the person as a racist or a fascist, and —- given the recent spate of “anti-fascist” assassinations —- could amount to a death sentence quite literally. Do you still believe that? Or are you retracting it as the inflammatory attack on Wikipedia it clearly is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fortunately, it doesn't appear that the video is directly cited by our article, so I don't see why we're even debating this. If you have an issue with the sources actually used, you should talk about them, not this meaningless sideshow--and not here in any event. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s not my meaningless sideshow, I don’t want to be here. Andy, you’re objecting to these words of mine at user talk: “labeling a person as a white nationalist seems about as disparaging as labeling the person as a racist or a fascist, and —- given the recent spate of ‘anti-fascist’ assassinations —- could amount to a death sentence quite literally.” I would change “assassinations” to “assassinations and other violence”. Other than that, I stand by the sentence. Misusing words can trigger crazy people to do bad stuff. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You have offered precisely zero evidence that words have been misused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Another editor said, “Here he is calling himself a white nationalist.” You responded “yup.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That is the sum of your evidence? That I replied in the affirmative to a post where Doyle did exactly that? Is this 'words mean the exact opposite' day or something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The tweet in question does not prove your allegation. Far from it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The tweet in question features Doyle describing himself as a white nationalist: "white nationalist, yours truly". [172] Denial of objectively-determinable facts may be fashionable in some contexts, but it tends not to go down well at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is all getting very silly. Two things we can say about Doyle:

1. he has described his politics as white-nationalist himself
2. he's probably not at all notable

The second point rather overrides the former. I'm all for accurately reflecting the politics of political extremists when they're notable. When they're just random extremists we just delete the page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I’m the editor that linked the video and I did so because the OP of the original thread was claiming that white nationalist was both offensive and not applicable to the subject, despite acknowledging that third party sources use the label. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The debate is because it appears certain editors wanted to put that he denies being a white nationalist into the article and / or remove the statement he is a white nationalist on the basis of WP:ABOUTSELF denials. As such an WP:ABOUTSELF admission would undercut any such denials. It comes down to the question of how much credence we should give to WP:ABOUTSELF disavowals of political extremism from obvious political extremists. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI does not settle content disputes. It does however deal with behavioural issues like accusing Wikipedia contributors of -intentionally or otherwise - inciting political violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is, of course, correct. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

To return to the topic at hand--I don't really see this as actionable. The comment is ridiculous, for a number of reasons, but (at the moment) it's a one-off, tucked away on a user talk page (general clamor above notwithstanding). If there's a pattern of deploying this kind of nonsense, especially in the midst of actual content disputes, then we might be able to do something, as trying to override a serious discussion with this kind of absurd alarmism would certainly be considered disruptive. But right now I just don't see a reasonable action for an admin to take. That said, Anythingyouwant: you'd be well-advised to knock it off. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

For context, this is the user page of a SPA who turned up - along with several other new accounts, who must at minimum, have been driven there by external canvassing - at Talk:John Doyle (YouTube host) in order to construct a 'consensus' against the political description being applied, based around arguments incompatible with Wikipedia policy. Rather than explain actual policy though, Anythingyouwant saw fit to provide more of the same, and attack core Wikipedia principles in the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood, and I appreciate the additional context. The implication that I hope my response bore was that, if this kind of comment becomes a pattern, it would absolutely become actionable even if confined to user talk pages--it will just get there double-quick if it creeps into actual content discussions as well. The construction of a "faux-consensus posse" is the situation I had in mind as genuinely disruptive. Though, it looks like their contributions to this thread are rapidly becoming a problem in themselves. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with WK here. This is not, by any means, a good or useful comment, but I don't see anything actionable on an administrative level at this time. I'll add that we need to be especially careful taking any admin action against a complaint about BLP violations or potential harms to subjects, even if that complaint is not well-founded, as we don't want any kind of chilling effect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

So I read through the end of Anything's first reply, and I decided I had read enough (and ADD strikes again). We have a situation of intent vs effect, and intent is important. We don't convict someone of murder if the killing was unintended. Do I believe the intent was good? After reading their explanation, and per AGF, yes. Anything may have an "image problem" among some, but I don't see any evidence of dishonesty. (I don't overtrust, as evidenced by the fact that I could name two or three dishonest editors if I wanted a block.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I read the first half of your post, and decided to ignore the rest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I handle rejection well. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs from Bashkortostan kept reverting changes.

Dynamic IPs from Bashkortostan kept reverting changes after I reverted them because of misinformation and used wrong sources about rebranding of Star Channel to FX in an article (diff 1, diff 2). Should they be blocked? –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 13:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the /64. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish you have blocked the wrong IP but not others. –LDM2003 ^{talk to me!} 18:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Please remove the edit summary from this revision

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1998&diff=prev&oldid=1314703524 says an abbreviation for the f word with just f but still I take that as a reason for the edit summary to be deleted. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Ordinary incivility isn't subject to revision deletion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Arguably that edit might warrant revision deletion for being WP:ATTACK on a low-profile BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Um, yeah. It was off the bottom of the page, so I just looked at the edit summary. :( Fixed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Samuel Abraham Steinberg evading salt protection

User:Samuel Abraham Steinberg recently recreated the page Econofoods, but under the new title of Econo foods. Econofoods has been draftified twice and speedily deleted twice, and has been marked as being under salt protection. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 22:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)