Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Return to potentially POINTy editing

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

---

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

Dncmartins was recently the subject of another AN/I thread after starting AfD's for a large swath of articles, all comparison articles, after arguing strongly for Keep in WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. There was no consensus to impose any sanctions or warnings, partially as there seemed to be consensus they were now aware that their conduct appeared pointy to some editors.

Despite that, they have returned to the exact same pattern of editing (with some of the same copied messages). In the intervening month, they've created six new AfDs and added WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH templates to 165 articles.

Given

• their (in the scheme of things, very recent) arguments in WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands
• this recent swath of unchanged editing in this area after discussion with editors that it may be disruptive
• their tone in a recent AfD:

For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed.

I personally believe this to be editing strictly for the WP:POINT that Comparison of smartphone brands should not have been deleted.

Whether it's sanctions, a stronger warning, or something else, I think something should be done to get them to reconsider this. If this truly isn't WP:POINTY, they should slow down and work on improving this area without creating disruption.

Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins You need to be aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies in reverse too. "Another article like this one was deleted" is not a valid argument for deletion, as it says on that page. Athanelar (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As the originator of the previous thread, I find it entirely unsurprising that we are here again after no action was taken that time. The latest AfD nominations are terse and identical. It is clear that Dncmartins just wants as many "Comparison of" articles deleted as possible in retaliation for their favourite one being deleted. There is no indication of careful selection. This is disruptive. I think we need a topic ban from AfD and from "Comparison of" articles at an absolute minimum but I would also strongly question whether that is sufficient. Somebody holding a grudge over this length of time really is not an asset to the encyclopaedia. Just check out their contribution history. They aren't even doing anything else at all now. It is all "Comparison of" articles and everything this year seems geared towards these low effort, borderline indiscriminate, AfDs. Even when tagging for cleanup their edit summaries make it clear that this is merely intended as a prelude to an AfD (e.g. diff). This indicates that there could be many more such low effort AfDs coming soon if not stopped.

It might be legitimate to believe that all "Comparison of" articles should be deleted and to start a centralised discussion about that. Starting an unnecessary number of individual low effort AfDs is unacceptable. Copypasting near identical replies into each, all referencing the one deletion that they are sulking about is unacceptable (e.g. this and this). Given that the previous trip to ANI has done nothing to prompt better behaviour, I think we need an indef and to speedy close all their AfDs.

I also think that the articles already deleted should be given a quick review. If there was a genuine considered consensus to delete then that's fair enough but if any were deleted with only minimal participation or only cursory consideration then maybe those should be overturned or reviewed more carefully. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would personally oppose an indef - with no other conduct issues or escalation of this one issue past a previous no-sanctions AN/I I'm not convinced they're WP:NOTHERE. The length of time they've been editing this way is only a couple months. I think I would support a TBAN for AfD or for an even more narrowly scoped topic.

I'll do a review of the previous AfDs. I recall seeing a couple with a pretty good amount of people weighing in and reaching a good consensus. For the record, I personally think that many of these comparison articles should be deleted. I'm concerned about the disruption of bringing so many of these so quickly for a WP:POINT. Eyesinthefire (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

My overall view is that the existing consensus reached in the closed AfDs (the 7 AfDs started on March 8th) is well-discussed.

Review of closed AfDs

From this search: WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of version-control software

Result was no consensus - discussion was a bit messy but with a good amount of participants, there were some claims of OR, some people mentioned not finding OR - closing admin suggested centralized discussion

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of server-side web frameworks

Result was no consensus - discussion was short and cut off by mentions of first AN/I thread

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP client software

Result was delete - discussion was fairly short. I don't think I agree with some of the claims around OR, but nobody was able to articulate a good non-procedural keep. I would personally have voted delete per WP:GNG.

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of FTP server software packages

Result was delete - discussion was extensive, with multiple OR and sourcing problems.

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Usenet newsreaders

Result was merge to List of Usenet newsreaders - fairly short discussion, but no non-procedural keeps

WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Subversion clients

Result was delete - ditto discussion notes above

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_iPod_file_managers

Result was delete - ditto above

I don't think a procedural and/or speedy keep is required for any of the active AfDs, they all have fairly active discussion. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

a couple quotes I found while doing this full review that were not brought up in the last AN/I which I think point to this being a WP:POINT:

[1]!!! [2]

most of the other participation of Dncmartins in these threads has been to paste in the same few clips about this article with no rationale or how it applies to the article in question, which to me points to not actually caring about the AfD they're trying to do. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

upon thinking it over more, I would prefer to support a topic ban from deletion at minimum and would not oppose an indefinite block. Eyesinthefire (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins: at the bare minimum, you need to immediately start citing exactly how your nominations accord with deletion policy. You seem to have become obsessed with some random essay, and that's not going to fly. Also, if you're threatening to overload AfD with a zillion copy-pasted nominations made by a bot, you should expect to get blocked pretty quickly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the solution is obvious. We're not talking block-worthy behavior, yet. But all that was proposed in the last ANI thread was a tban from deletion. That's the remedy we should consider now. I see the points the Oppose voters made, but plainly Dncmartins was given too much rope. Ravenswing 01:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support a strongly worded warning, making it evident that this pointy-ness is not allowed, and they are at the end of their rope, balancing on the edge of the chair. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 01:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Would also support a tban from deletion per Ravenswing. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 02:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from deletion at a minimum, but I'm honestly not sure why we're not INDEFFing. There's no indication this editor is a productive contributor and their disruption just moves. Star Mississippi 11:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  That they continue to open AfDs and have begun PRODding when there's broad disagreement with their actions shows to me that they're here in bad faith. I'm leaning more INDEF than TB. If these articles need to go, someone else can assess with far less drama. Star Mississippi 00:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  In their defence this discussion was opened two weeks ago and they have yet to receive a sanction - they could have exhausted a number of temporary bans in this amount a of time. Orange sticker (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:POINTY is about disruptive behaviour. Nominating articles for deletion that are nearly always reaching consensus for deletion seems a positive contribution to me. Presuming someone's motive isn't WP:AGF and if the volume of AfDs is problematic you could try to ask them to slow down, but I don't see any attempt to address this before coming here. They've even asked a mod about starting a centralised discussion about these pages. Orange sticker (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The attempt to address this before coming here was the previous AN/I, in which they were made aware this pace was being seen as disruptive.

My view of their motive is based heavily on their return to this pattern of editing after being made aware in a very active discussion, as well as [3] [4] [5] several comments they made during the AfDs. I don't think that's presumptious. Eyesinthefire (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The previous ANI concluded there was no evidence of disruptive editing and no need for any sanctions, and the closing administer asked editors not to be so quick to ask for them. The only disruptive editing I'm seeing is from editors assuming bad faith in the AfDs and not assessing the articles on their own merit. Orange sticker (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I assumed a lot of good faith reading through these AfDs and edit history, and was eventually convinced by the pattterns and comments that it was not good faith editing.

I will say I disagree with some of the other editors trying to procedurally close these AfDs. Eyesinthefire (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

So if you think that the AfDs should stand, what is your problem here? Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

They're still disruptive for a WP:POINT, as are Dncmartins' mass edits to other comparison articles. Despite that, I don't think procedurally closing them is neccesary. Eyesinthefire (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think they're all productive edits done in good faith, and the vast majority of nominations for deletion I agree with. If Dncmartins is blocked or tbanned I'd be inclined to carry on nominating and adding templates. Seeing as I have no dog in this fight, I wouldn't be proving a point but trying to improve Wikipedia. Would I be considered disruptive by doing this? Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I don't agree that this is a problematic situation. The article that they created was deleted for reasons which generally also apply to articles they subsequently nominated for deletion. The AfDs have been well-attended and attracted reasonable arguments on both sides. A substantial number ended in delete; those that didn't were mostly disrupted with criticism of the nominator rather than engaging in whether the article was suitable for inclusion. The previous ANI was closed with an appeal by the closer to stop jumping on editors with calls for bans and blocks and noted that "There is no consensus to impose a topic ban. There's no direct evidence that Dncmartins was acting with disruptive intent." Nothing has changed since then and the advice from the closer has clearly fallen on deaf ears. Six AfDs is not a number which will overwhelm the AfD process. Frankly, I think editors trying to shut down the AfDs without considering the merits of the nomination and the suitability of the articles to be rather more disruptive and in bad faith. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• TBAN from deletion After reading the 11 AfDs they posted March 8, I believe they are not exercising due diligence in selecting articles and appropriate effort in posting the discussions. Roughly half the discussions are in the "keep" camp, it appears (many have not closed yet). But that's not the big problem. The main problem is that the delete rationales are WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia without any explanation as to why that particular article has original research. Each nomination should at least point to examples or explain the problem. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of these articles that they are AfDing are, indeed, irretrievable crap (I mean, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 3D printers (2nd nomination)). Whilst their nomination rationales (WP:OR? I think not) are nonsense, articles like this don't need to exist. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think it is worth a broader discussion about whether we should simply forbid "comparison of" articles entirely. The whole concept seems somewhat unencyclopedic, honestly. I wouldn't expect to crack open an old Britannica and find an article comparing models of typewriters or something. Athanelar (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

   Courtesy link: WP:VPR § Banning product comparison articles Athanelar (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN from deletion, but keep AFDs - As I said in the previous ANI case, while these nominations were somewhat valid, it does not excuse the fact that these nominations were made to demonstrate an WP:POINT. Even after the initial warning from the last ANI, the user still tagged all of the 100+ comparison articles and made more AFDs, demonstrating literally the first example in that policy. I have also asked the user in one of the AFDs to make a RfC in WP:VP instead of making pointless AfDs, but it seems like the user is ignoring the message and decided to use the same response as that was that brought us here previously, so these nominations are most certainly made out of spite. (Thankfully, somebody else did just that). EvanTech10 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions It's illogical if not vindictive to sanction someone for nominating AfDs that consensus agrees are worthwhile, but because of a presumed motivation. Barely any attempt has been made outside of ANI to work with the editor on their editing patterns, which aren't problematic anyway. If nominating something for deletion with a very brief rationale is a so great a problem then a lot of editors would need hauling over the coals. Orange sticker (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions for productive good-faith edits of six AfDs in a month. How is this a "chronic, intractable behavioural problem"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  The user also tagged all the comparison articles with cleanup tags, like 100+ or so articles. Check his contributions. Also he was using the same copy and pasted reply in relation to his prior AfD. I’ve also suggested the user to create a village pump RfC instead of nominating the articles for deletion but it seems like the user isn’t responding. I just left the user a message to participate in the RfC above so we can have productive discussion on the topic of these articles. EvanTech10 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Excellent work by him. Should I nominate e.g. Comparison of GUI testing tools for deletion, or wait until he gets around to it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you have a valid reason and are willing to participate in a productive discussion, you should absolutely do that. The problem with Dncmartins is that he is not putting a lot of effort into these AfDs (especially with the copy-and-paste replies and vague rationale) and is doing so just because his article was deleted to prove a WP:POINT (a Wikipedia behavioral guideline). EvanTech10 (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Being right isn't enough" EvanTech10 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please read WP:POINT's last line and get back to me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Devils advocate/genuine question - would AFD's be counted as "saying" or "actually doing" - it's almost in the middle? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you notice the edit summaries on those taggings? They all say "Starting deletion process...". It is clear that this is not intended to prompt improvements to those articles. This is just a prelude to another large batch of disruptive, low effort AfDs which will be coming down the pipeline soon, if not prevented. It is putting on a (half-hearted) show of due diligence instead of actually doing due diligence. It is clear that this is disruptively motivated, as retaliation. I know that a lot of "Comparison of" articles are poor, and some of them might be better off deleted, but allowing a guy with a grudge to bulldoze through them all indiscriminately, good, bad and ugly alike, is the worst possible way to handle it. Starting a centralised discussion, as Athanelar has, is the legitimate way to do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please explicity state what is disruptive about this pattern of editing? There's no rule saying which is the correct way to do things, we can have both a centralised discussion and get on with deleting the bad articles, in fact having both processes run simultaneously is arguably beneficial. Orange sticker (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Spite is a powerful motivator it seems. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  See the degree to which Dncmartins copy-pastes the same I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed as opposed to giving rationales at all related to the article, as well as:

  [6] - That the point of this discussion. Wikipedia needs to agree on wether it is governed by inconsistent opinions or consistent policies.

  [7] - [...] because it is a Wikipedia policy that this kind or articles are not allowed and must be deleted. Wikipedia deletion policy must be consistent or it will be a joke and eaten up by new alternatives like Grokipedia.

  Even if the AfDs themselves are good to keep or should be opened separately from this (I personally think many of these AfDs are overdue and might open some myself), the (to my view, after reviewing their editing since that first AfD they tried to keep) editing in putting them together is not in productive good-faith. Eyesinthefire (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering why there’s been so many comparison articles at AfD lately. Now I know more about the situation, I would support a TBAN on AfD at minimum. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 22:32, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN - the comments highlighted above by Eyesinthefire make it abundantly clear that Dcnmartins is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, irrespective of whether the AfDs end up deleting bad articles. Katzrockso (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be a lot of ABF in this thread, with several editors assuming that Dnc is nominating articles to make a point. I see someone who listened to the arguments put forward at WP:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands, and realised they had been wrong there. ~2026-19405-38 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose sanctions: Given that we've established that many of these articles should be deleted via the normal AfD process, I am a very tough sell for the argument that these nominations are out-of-line. These articles are filled with original research and are being nominated at roughly a rate of one article per day, which takes out the baseless claim that WP: BEFORE is not being followed. It is so disappointing to see that we are back at ANI just because a group of individuals personally disagree with the editing style of another user; this user's behavior is well within bounds of Wikipedia policy. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

which takes out the baseless claim that WP: BEFORE is not being followed - could you expand on this? I don't think any of the people worried about WP:BEFORE are because of the pace, but because of the lack of any sort of justification in lieu of copy pasting the same couple verbatim arguments. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The justification that an article contains WP: OR and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia (drawing on language from WP: DELREASON) is complete and self-contained. The truth of the matter is that most articles violate one of a small handful of policies, and there's only so many ways to say "The entire article consists of WP: OR" or "Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources from a WP: BEFORE". I would guess that this is not obvious to most people unless they've actually gone through the process of nominating several articles for deletion. So what if the rationales are copy-pasted? If the argument is true, then I don't see any problem. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

HyperAccelerated, if the articles DID have orginal research, they should have a better explnation than the one given at every single AfD he opened. WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopedia is not a good reason, being pretty vauge and unspecific. Thelunamoon (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOT are both valid rationales for deletion. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

When evidence is presented that the page under discussion is contrary to those policies. A vague wave towards a deletion reason is at best a waste of time and at worst disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How is the reason given at the AfDs vaild? Please le valyn, give a reason better then your comment below. Thelunamoon (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. It's implied that the article consists entirely or almost entirely of original research if it's being nominated for deletion (rather than being resolved through normal editing). That is a specific reason for an article to be deleted. WP: AFDHOWTO actually discourages long rationales for AfDs, suggesting that they generally be kept to under 150 words. The bar for misbehavior is "WP: BEFORE was willfully and systematically ignored". It is not "I personally dislike these nominations because {the rationale uses too few words, I think the rationales are wrong, etc.}". HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a WP:BEFORE at all. There is barely any evidence they'd read more than the article title. That's absolutely into disruptive nomination territory. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that many of the nominations have actually ended with the article getting deleted, I am inclined to believe that the nominator is doing the right thing here. You are free to personally disagree with the outcome of the AfDs, but the notion that there is "no evidence of a WP:BEFORE" makes a stronger claim about competence and/or intent that is simply not true. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline (Essay, not policy)

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

I think most people expect some amount of how, not just what. CommonsKiwi (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with CommonsKiwi. All reasons should be specific and reasonable not vauge and questionable. I personaly think that Dncmartins is meating somehow, with all of these editors defending him for some reason, but lets not get into accuations, it's not nessesary. Thelunamoon (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You've made 5 comments on this discussion after a grand total of 1 mainspace edit. But sure, it is the other guy we should suspect of socking. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I shall not perticipate in this thread any longer. Thelunamoon (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to TBAN someone based off of one paragraph in an essay. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that. CommonsKiwi (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

You quoted an essay implying that these nominations are flawed, then immediately said "nobody is saying that" when called out on it. This is a waste of everyone's time. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should TBAN someone based on one paragraph in an essay. The My main argument for sanctions is about how they have, or more accurately haven't, engaged with or responded to past concerns from other editors.

Frankly, this feels like a bad faith interpretation of my reply. Thelunamoon stated 'WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopedia' is not a good reason, being pretty vauge and unspecific, which you creatively reinterpreted as "I personally dislike these nominations because {the rationale uses too few words, I think the rationales are wrong, etc.}". I was pointing out the general consensus that short rationales that vaguely gesture at policy are bad. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think there is only one unambiguous interpretation of a citation of an essay in a discussion where several people are attempting to get a user TBANned. The rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with my original points. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose t-ban, supportish warn, maybe give them something like 'please stay away from AfD for now to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to gain more experience in what is notable',my reasoning is similar to Orange sticker's.~2026-22071-94 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If we cannot come to a consensus for a TBAN/block, I would alternatively support a strongly worded warning talking about how some editors find it pointy and referring to the deletion process/guidelines, and if the user keeps on making low effort AfDs without meaningful discussion after this point, consider a block. EvanTech10 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The thread wasn't closed yet so I'm unarchiving this thread EvanTech10 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: It seems like Dncmartins is still making PRODs/AfDs on even more comparison articles as of today. Nothing has changed and the user is still sticking with the same reasoning, even after we told them to discuss their opinion in the RfC instead of making more nominations. EvanTech10 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that, despite this matter not being resolved either here or at the Village Pump, Dncmartins is still making exactly the same sorts of AfD. I think this has to lead to an indef now. There is no reaching them. Let other people, who are willing to engage with our policies seriously, pick up the mantle of sorting out which of these articles are valid and which are not. This is just creating chaos. Yes, I still think this is motivated by retaliation but I also think that an indef would be justified even if this was all done in good faith. Dncmartins has been advised to stop and engage with the process several times by multiple people. Nothing is getting through. He is not engaging in any other aspect of Wikipedia at all. If this is good faith then CIR comes into play. Nobody is benefiting from this being allowed to continue. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Now he is even challenging the right of people to !vote against his wishes. See this example. This is unacceptable per WP:OWN. He clearly thinks that these articles are his to delete almost unilaterally. He is completely unreachable. Many have tried. All have failed. This is a disruptive SPA. He has been given way more rope than can possibly be justified. Please can we just apply an indef and put a stop to this? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I do agree and support a indefinite block. Even after warning that he may be blocked from AfDs after making so much, he responds by playing victim and claiming that I "harassed" him and that I'm the one "disrupting Wikipedia" (link) despite just being a warning. It's obvious that he doesn't want to change his behavior. EvanTech10 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit it with this nonsense. Un-archiving an ANI thread just to continue personal beefs and spamming their nominations with notices of this ANI thread is textbook WP: HOUNDING. You are in the wrong, you are harassing this individual, and you need to stop pretending that having a personal dislike for an editor is an acceptable cover for any of this behavior. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anything you've said about these these two's conduct is correct. I disagree with the two folks you've responded to in that I don't think an indef is warranted yet, but Dncmartins continuing to open low-effort badly justified AfDs is disruptive and warrants further discussion. Eyesinthefire (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think my frustration here is warranted. We've already had this discussion before. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that it would be productive to have a second round of this silliness. It is very telling that so much effort has gone into trying to slap this user with a TBAN, but almost no effort has gone into actually improving the articles being nominated, most of which are being deleted (in spite of your baseless claim that the nominations are "low-effort" and "badly justified"). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I can understand us coming to different assessments of the quality of these edits, but don't appreciate you calling mine baseless given the work I've done summarizing Dncmartins' edits in diffs above in the thread. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your claims are baseless. The core claim of your original message is "I personally believe this to be editing strictly for the WP:POINT" -- this is ascribing intentions to another person and is an assumption of bad faith, neither of which is appropriate in a venue that frequently hands out indefinite suspensions. Your analysis shows that most of the articles nominated by the user in question were deleted or merged, which directly contradicts your claim that these nominations are poorly constructed. You should not expect an A for Effort for attempting to get a user banned from AfDs. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll drop the stick at this point. I don't think we're going to agree on this. Eyesinthefire (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Now there is a round of lazy PRODs. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions that are not thought to require discussion. Sure, people can think something is a PROD and be mistaken in good faith but Dncmartins knows that these deletions are controversial and that some of the AfDs have ended as Keeps. He must know that PROD is inappropriate. The motivation seems to be to avoid deletion discussions which might not go his way. That tips it over into vandalism for me. There is no respect for Wikipedia, just a desire to delete whatever he can. This abuse has to be stopped! Please can we get an indef, a topic ban, anything to stop the disruption? Why are we still indulging this? I've seen people indefed for less than 10% of this behaviour. Why are we acting like we can't see what is right in front of our faces? DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you could benefit from taking a deep breath and giving this thread some space to develop. You've been very clear in your last three additions to this thread that you support an indef, you don't have to keep banging that drum. I agree with HyperAccelerated that you spamming copy-pasted !votes is not helping the situation. Especially when you characterize their protesting of this spam as "challenging the right of people to !vote against his wishes" and start making declarations about another editor's motivations such as "He clearly thinks that these articles are his to delete almost unilaterally" and "The motivation seems to be to avoid deletion discussions which might not go his way". I understand your feelings but please be careful not to decide that you know how an editor thinks and what motivates them. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Leaving motivation aside, I think we need to get action on this ASAP. The disruption is ongoing and is clearly not going to stop until it is stopped. DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

'Disruption' by Dncmartins to be contested by multiple people (by the fact that people have opposed a topic ban above). Let some uninvolved admin assess the situation and see whether they agree that it is truly disruptive. ~2026-22071-94 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Another three new AfDs started in the last hour. I have already demonstrated that he has a pipeine of over a hundred potential AfDs. Please can somebody do something? DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I have speedily closed those nominations. Those pages are valid lists that are quite different from the software comparison articles, and Dncmartins is falsely claiming original research when there is none. I would Support at least temporary sanctions as these are definitely disruptive and unhelpful. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Quit fearmongering. You speak as if these articles are people trapped in a five alarm fire. They are not. They are pieces of text written by strangers on the Internet. You are again ascribing intentions to another user and assuming bad faith. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Clearly low-effort and very low signal:noise. Strongly suspect WP:POINT or WP:RGW, but irrespective of motivation, this must stop. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN The fact that they're continuing to nominate articles at a high rate whilst discussion is ongoing and not engaging in said discussion is now disruptive. This cannot continue. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose sanctions. All I can see here is a new editor who learned (the hard way) about our policies on OR and SYNTH and is now trying to apply that knowledge. Regarding their AfDs, WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia is a policy-based deletion rationale, and I'm not convinced the pace of deletion is disruptive -- on the 27th, they did four and then stopped when asked. Tagging an article's issues to see if they can be fixed before a nomination is also an appropriate, non-disruptive way to try to apply our policies. The only action I question is the attempted use of PROD, but that too has stopped. Right now, the Village Pump discussion looks quite undecided about how our policies should apply to comparison articles; while that's ongoing, it's probably best not to nominate any "comparison" articles for deletion, and I have told Dncmartins so. Consensus on that topic will probably be easier with a lot more AGF than I have seen in this thread. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I sure hope he stops. However, from the edit history and past discussions here and on their talk page, he has a previous history of nominating more PRODs and AfDs after already being aware of the VP discussion, the previous ANI discussion, and countless warnings. For example, in just the past few days, he nominated 3 space-comparison articles after responding to one of the warnings on the talk page, saying: I understand you do not like current Wikipedia policies. I will submit those to AfD so you can post your opinions, but the AfDs were speedy closed because they were well-sourced (I checked them myself), meaning he clearly didn't even check the article itself before nominating them for deletion. To be clear, I'm not saying that most of these comparison articles should be kept (most are warranted to be deleted), but if you want to nominate the same type of article for deletion, it would be much better and non-disruptive to engage in a discussion about the state of these articles rather than nominating dozens to prove a point. EvanTech10 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, as soon as someone actually told them to stop nominating AfDs while the VP discussion was open, they did. This is someone who has not edited at all in several days, not someone currently on an unstoppable rampage. Maybe they won’t adjust course appropriately when they return to editing, in which case it may then be time to escalate, but sanctions are preventative, not punitive, and I’m not convinced there’s currently anything to prevent. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  And as I pointed out about, this thread was opened sixteen days ago - that's longer than some blocks. Orange sticker (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  He has finally stopped nominating new articles for deletion but this was only after being told to stop many times by several people over a sustained period. In the meantime, his focus seems to have switched to Deletion Review. IIRC, he did stop for a period during the last ANI thread only to resume once it had ended with no action taken. I strongly suspect that the exact same thing would happen again if no action is taken this time. DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I would concur with this. The disruption has now moved to WP:DRV and it is clear that they will not WP:DROPTHESTICK. Katzrockso (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I went over to DRV expecting to see disruption, but all I see is a single discussion (so far, anyway). This and the AFD activity (which in many cases is being endorsed by other editors in the form of delete votes) does not make the case for a disruptive editor. I'm not so sure they actually need to drop any sticks. MrOllie (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:POINT is all about editing that technically meets the letter of the guidelines and might even be correct on the merits, but is nonetheless disruptive. Wikipedia:Being right is not enough has been a principle for quite a long time. Katzrockso (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, sometimes it is enough. If someone wants to revert vandalism with malice in their heart I'm fine with it as long as vandalism gets reverted. My point is that WP:POINT does not kick in if the actions are not actually disruptive. Focus on results and not thoughtcrime. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  A single DRV strikes me a reasonable use of the appropriate process to determine if an AfD was closed appropriately. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are making it sound like the number of AfD nominations was excessive and disruptive - they were not and he had quite a high success rate until the last four were speedily closed by a non-admin on the basis they were disruptive, yet there is no consensus that their behaviour is disruptive. Orange sticker (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies, I was somewhat ventriloquizing the opposing viewpoint there -- I agree that the pace of AfDs was not disruptive. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Looking at this user's contributions, he doesn't seem like a contributive editor starting all those AfDs with the same explnation. Thelunamoon (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Warn or TBAN User has made no meaningful attempts to address previous concerns (1 2 3 4). They have continued copy-pasing the same rationales, and even began creating PRODs despite the clearly controvertial nature of their past AFDs. CommonsKiwi (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions; their nominations aren't disrupting AfD, and many of the comparison-lists they're nominating do have substantial problems. Overall, what they're doing is a net positive for Wikipedia's content, and I can't see good grounds for anyone to feel too upset by it. Elemimele (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support sanctions I'm not sure *what* sanctions, and lean toward a simple-but-clear warning. The actions appear to be quite POINTY. At least some noms are at best half-considered and vague with little evidence of serious insight into the issue. The tagging also appears questionable (I personally tend to find such tags worthless without explicit lists of issues) and mass tagging is rarely productive. But it's a new user. I think a simple warning would be enough. Noms should be well-considered and at least somewhat detailed about specific issues. What exactly is OR for example. Tagging should, ideally, include a talk page comment that explains the issues. And even better, would include at least a start at fixing the issue(s) identified. Mass actions with little thought are disruptive, not helpful. Done in small quantities, the disruption is minor and new users would get feedback and learn. Done in large quantities, the feedback should be a bit more formal. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

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

I restored OwenX (talk · contribs)'s close from the archive after it was reverted by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) for being an edit to archive. It is important to keep OwenX's assessment of the consensus since it is cited here in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community and here in the topic ban and partial block message. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hew Mun Weng

Hi everyone. As can be seen through the warnings and shorter blocks on their Talk page, Hew Mun Weng (talk · contribs) has a history of disruptive editing. In my view, some of their changes are constructive – this is not a case of WP:CIR. But their disruptive edits in combination with an inability or refusal to communicate, possibly caused by WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, causes trouble to other editors. In two of their recent edits, they removed sources from table leaving them without any inline citations at all: 10 June, today.

We need a way of getting them to understand that WP:communication is required. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Previously raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1214#Hew Mun Weng and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1215#Hew Mun Weng with no action taken.

I agree that some of their edits are positive (e.g. this which I noticed the other day and was very impressed with), but the complete lack of communication is a serious issue, and their recent trend of deleting references from articles is very concerning. GiantSnowman 12:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

An article-space block is the generally-preferred method when other reasonable attempts fail. It would seem entirely justified here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that until we get some communication. GiantSnowman 20:15, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above and that a block is warranted if there is simply no communication. Competence is required. Jay-GH 06:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also supporting this, they have had multiple notices now, they should at some level be aware (or told) that they are obliged to respond when they get that many notices/requests to communicate. Either an article space block or a topic ban might be warranted? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked them from the article space. Any admin is free to lift the block should they be convinced that the issues outlined above have been satisfactorily resolved and that the issue would not recur. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 18:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate your pblock, while there always is a chance of it being a case of THEYCANTHEARYOU I really do think if anyones been on wikipedia for three years they should have the basic ability to at least check talk pages. People can make mistakes or not know all the rules (im sure everyone here is guilty of not knowing some of the rules) but just lack of basic communication after three years is absurd. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Are we allowed to point out that their user name appears to be a pun? And are we allowed to point out that the pun is constructed in a way that might reasonably be construed as a prejudice against East Asian names and, by extension, East Asians?

My reading of WP:NORACISTS is admittedly broad, but if this editor should become unblocked, maybe they should politely be asked to change their user name first as part of the unblock? Mikewem (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to point that out - but please can you explain the pun for idiots like me? GiantSnowman 18:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hu-man Weng? GiantSnowman 18:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Human wang. It’s a dick joke. Or at least, in my view, might reasonably be construed as a dick joke. Mikewem (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, I know what a 'wang' is but did not make the connection here. I agree it's a reasonable analysis. GiantSnowman 20:05, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

More likely, in my opinion is '''Human Being''', or '''Hugh Man Being''', or '''Hugh Man Weing'''. Let's not get sidetracked, — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC) —

M.S. Asher: Violations of WP:ONUS, repeated personal attacks, and some recent edit warring.

Hello,

I have a situation that involves the user account User:M.S. Asher. This is a case that involves personal attacks/accusations, WP:ONUS Policy violations, and some edit-warring. Allow me to explain the situation.

On January 22, 2026, M.S. Asher posted a request for a Third Opinion regarding an issue on Talk:Germany–Iran relations (Germany–Iran relations Talk Page). Stumbling upon the post and having some familiarity with the topic, I posted an in-depth 3O in an attempt to help resolve the matter; Asher's request is found here. There were other users apparently involved in this debate who had engaged in sockpuppetry on that talk page; M.S. Asher felt suspicious that, because I agreed with the position of the sockpuppets (who I did not realize were sockpuppets), I myself was also a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of another user. The investigation can be found here under February 6, 2026.

Initially, the first Check-User Izno commented "I would guess this user either also is Melons or knows Melons personally (possibly digital only). I couldn't say which is more likely but lean toward know rather than is." This was, seemingly, a preliminary comment by the CheckUser thinking meatpuppetry was involved; the sockpuppets of the abusive user were blocked but I was not. Another user who chimed in from the the Third Opinion Post was User:MWFwiki; he directed M.S. Asher to make his desired changes based on Izno's preliminary comment, here. This was clearly a mistake on his end (a forgivable one), and breached WP:ONUS, because my account was still unblocked. The proper procedure was to continue engaging in discussion until a consensus was reached, as policy dictates (WP:ONUS); I posted my Third Opinion before M.S. Asher launched the investigation and I was never blocked, meaning he should have engaged with me for consensus before making changes); however, Asher made his changes regardless on March 29, 2026. See here. Please know that M.S. Asher is already aware of the principle behind ONUS, as another user already warned him before on that same talk page, see here. Furthermore, a look at Asher's talk page shows another user warned them about consensus policy and WP:ONUS with reference to another unrelated article in the past: see here and here. Asher has thus been warned several times and is well-aware of these policies. Nevertheless, I decided to hold things off until my investigation was completed and decided not to revert things back to their old stable versions, out of good faith courtesy. The investigation file took until June 3, 2026 to close.

As one clearly observes, the case closed without my block. I was cleared of any guilt; please see the investigation here, asilvering's comment. The admin commented that he did find the coincidental situation "very sus", but no sanctions or bans were placed on my account. I also was not barred from continuing to participate in the Germany–Iran relations Talk Page, and I was not barred from making any edits on that page, or any other page on the site.

During the time of the investigation process, I decided to do some policy research, directed by one of MWFwiki's comments telling me to do so; once the investigation file closed, I returned and posted a Policy Argument against M.S. Asher's position, demonstrating how M.S. Asher, the blocked user Confluencer, and my original Third Opinion were all based on WP:OR: Original Research. My argument supported the long-existing WP:QUO Status Quo information of that page that had been up since 2008. You can find my overall Policy Argument here. I also posted an argument titled "Restoration" where I undid M.S. Asher's March 29 edit that should not have been made in the first place, citing WP:QUO and WP:ONUS. The full argument can be read here.

It is now June 16, 2026. M.S. Asher has returned and reverted the old information again without consensus being reached; please see here. Once again, violating WP:ONUS policy and the suggested guideline of WP:QUO, even though I was found to be not guilty of sockpuppetry all this time, and the change should not have been made in the first place. This is also, by definition, a form of edit warring, just not a violation of the 3RR.

Please keep in mind, throughout this entire time, from the moment the investigation was initiated by Asher until the present moment, Asher has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks in the form of accusations against me, calling me a sockpuppet repeatedly. He engaged in all these behaviors despite me never getting blocked and no guilt being found. WP:PA lists a type of personal attack as: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. The fact that my account is currently cleared of any wrongdoing is proof there was no sufficient evidence against me.

Instances of M.S. Asher's accusations, broadly chronological:

1. Lying about the fact that Izno's preliminary statement was a confirmation that I'm a sockpuppet.

2. Doing so again here in a reply to MWFwiki.

3. Again, here.

4. In his most recent reply today, as of June 16, he justifies his edit warring and ONUS violation by saying he "feels no issue" with undoing my edit because of a "flimsy argument" (not a sufficient reason to override policy, even if true) and also because "you are very likely to be a sock-puppet of a banned user notorious for this editing behavior." He also accuses me of bad faith editing in that same reply, which I have not done whatsoever; on the contrary, I have engaged in good faith policy-oriented discussion. He also accused me of dragging on the discussion, even though I only became involved a few months ago. His final reply, after countless editing of his own response, can be read here; you can see all the personal attacks and him calling my behavior "suspicious" there. He even says my response is "Confluencer-style" (the sockpuppet user who was banned), further accusing me of sockpuppetry again, even though I am innocent and the case closed as such.

5. His edit summary today, June 16, he STILL calls me a "possibly a sockpuppet" in the edit summary, again after the file has closed and my account is left standing with no sanctions. He also disingenuously claimed I'm "throwing around policy violation accusations" when in reality I was just presenting an argument in the spirit of the consensus-building debate; the same "Policy Argument" as above.

In essence, instead of engaging with me fairly and waiting for the conclusion of the investigation, he decided to conduct himself this way. Furthermore, now that I am cleared of all charges, he STILL has engaged in these personal attacks; quite the unacceptable behavior. Keep in mind, I have been nothing but respectful this entire time.

I believe the combination of (i) violating WP:ONUS twice despite multiple warnings (both on that contested Talk Page and before in unrelated matters), (ii) edit warring recently to necessarily impose his will on the page-at-issue (Germany–Iran relations), and (iii) the repeated, countless, relentless personal attacks, all show some disciplinary action is needed; we are past the point of a warning. Personally, I propose an side-wide indefinite ban on his account or a topic ban related to any broad Nazi-related topics. However, I am in no place to tell Wiki admins what to do, so please do anything you see fit. His attitude of relentlessness to uphold his misconduct indicates that he will only continue committing such misconduct if Talk Page discussions continue with his involvement, and if that article's content is restored to reflect the pre-dispute Status Quo.

I shall add M.S. Asher is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:HERE); see Point 2: Respect for core editing standards. Behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content and behavior. Point 4 also applies to him: Self-correction and heeding lessons. When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. The user appears to take editing seriously and improves their editorial ability and quality of input. WP:NOTHERE, on the second point, lists disruptive behavior as a sign a user is not here to build an encyclopedia, as well. The three primary points I listed: 1. WP:ONUS violations and a disregard for consensus-building with me because of his suspicions; 2. His continuous personal attacks; and 3. His recent edit-warring, are all clear indications of this. This is also, in great part, why I suggested a site-wide ban on his account as one of the options above.

Thank you for your time. I hope this matter can be resolved soon. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A quick note to please be mindful of editors' gender - you've referred to everyone as "he" despite no gender being specified on their userpages. If someone doesn't have a clear gender preference, please use neutral terms. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not mean any offence by that. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All I ask is users to go examine the discussion page, and investigation thoroughly before a decision, which ofc the admins would do anyways. I considered the content violations accusations clearly baseless, the oppositional side (originally another user, and possibly this user, which is not a personal attack because the investigation believed it was suspect, but that there was not enough evidence for action to their standard) had repeatedly attempted to frame the discussion, and during my attempts to solve the debate through a third opinion this latest user with a gap of inactivity and small edit history came in asking to be taken as a third opinion immediately after the actual third opinion answered, the other user MWFwiki had agreed to my edit that Melons removed and this latest series of points raised in the discussion page appeared to be fallacious, I had already laid out the criteria and examination of the sources earlier in the discussion and I quickly restated anyways for the purpose of discussion (but I’m aware that I can’t speak for others so if anyone else legitimately does believe I engaged in content violations feel free to revert my last reversion). Anyways Ive reverted only once in three months on that page. I am in fact a male so I have no problem being referred to as he btw. I will note that the other user that was banned from the discussion, and who’s nature of responses and attitude is remarkably similar to this user, had a long history of bad-faith editing and deliberate account abuse, as you can see from the investigations file, perhaps someone could re-launch another sock investigation of this account. Either way he gave a new list of reasons why further editing, after he removed my edit, should not be allowed until the new accusations of policy violations he brought up were fully resolved, even after the requested third opinion stated no reservation regarding any of this and was the one who suggested I go ahead and edit the article. You can understand my concern, even if the admins decide my conduct was inappropriate regardless.

Anyways I reverted, whilst remarking that he (and the page in general for that matter it must be said) is at high risk for sock-puppet abuse, was because his accusations that I failed to meet ONUS or violated a couple of other standards such as original research and synth were clearly false. He is saying I didnt satisfy onus when after two years the third opinion suggested I go ahead and edit the article, he is saying I used SYNTH and original research when aside from pertaining to publishing analysis from original research and a synthesis of data that is not supported directly in the works on public wikipedia articles and not discussions of reliability of sources and wether they are more appropriate than recent published works — which wasn't what I based my argument on anyways as the information and citations of the works etc was all derived from the published sources, the statement themselves, and the core claim that Iranians were ever classified as Aryans was explicitly refuted by David Motadel in a published scholarly source. My edit that he reverted came only after the third opinion had suggested it after some two years of discussion. Further, I did not say that Izno confirmed he was a sock, but that he said he was likely that (another possibility he mentioned was meat-puppet) M.S. Asher (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Without re-reviewing all that has occurred (which I am willing to do, but there is a lot of ground to cover), I want to share my perspective based on my limited recollection of this entire situation.

1. My involvement in all of this began when I responded to a "Third Opinion" request, I believe made by @M.S. Asher. I made limited comments on it as there seemed to be extensive socking and there was limited participation by a third editor... it just seemed to @M.S. Asher left-standing.

2. I take exception to my response being characterized as a "direct[ion]". I advised M.S. Asher to edit within the bounds of policy and relevant guidelines; I don't think that is a controversial statement. That, given the amount of socking that had occurred on the page, and the lack of response from @DrMelonsPhD (and to be absolutely fair, they did respond, eventually), as long as they can defend their edits per ONUS, then who am I to stand in their way? (I'm no one, I don't have any authority to do so, to be abundantly clear - I may be a reasonably experienced editor and have several permissions but I am NOT an administrator, in case there is any confusion. Given my career-choices off-Wikipedia I tend to speak with a bit more of an officious tone than is probably warranted and I apologize in-advance)

3. @DrMelonsPhD was subject to a sockpuppet investigation at the time I made my comments. I based some of what I said off of what I said off of @Izno's (who really should have been alerted to this ANI, @DrMelonsPhD, given they're mentioned several times) statement on the sock investigation.

4. I also made it abundantly clear (here) that I had not personally seen any damning evidence against @DrMelonsPhD, though I did acknowledge some of their behavior was "slightly" odd.. but I also acknowledged that this could have been coincidental or even incidental. I did, admittedly, chide @DrMelonsPhD for their statements which seemed to indicate that they were conducting original research and I also advised them that they should — preferably — not be trying to provide Third Opinions when they are such an inexperienced editor, in my opinion, for numerous reasons.

5. I'm not entirely clear what the sock investigation's conclusion regarding @DrMelonsPhD was. Izno seemed to hint at a connection but that appeared to be mere speculation. However... given Izno's statement and given the extensive socking that had occurred on that page, I feel that @M.S. Asher's actions/statements should be evaluated via the lens of someone dealing with such socking. I.e. perhaps they should be given slightly more latitude than someone normally casting aspersions, or what have you (though I'm not saying I believe Asher was indeed casting aspersions... again, I haven't re-read everything yet).

6. All of this being said, I will re-read everything involved, here, and see if it's possible for me to present a better opinion. There are some rather serious claims, here, so, I think it warrants a good look. I do wish to make it clear that while I have ostensibly taken @M.S. Asher's "side" here, I really haven't. I'm just relaying what I recollect and how I see things having went-down. Again, I will re-familiarize myself with this situation and respond again.

Apologies for the length of this, dear readers. — MWFwiki (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi MWFwiki, thank you for your response. On your second point, you claimed that my "lack of response" was what had you advise Asher to make the changes he felt were right; however, I explicitly noted I would step away from editing until my sockpuppet investigation closed (here. While this is not an obligation dictated by policy, I felt it would be the right thing to do out of courtesy; perhaps you could also chalk it up to be a scared, indecisive new user unsure of how to handle such an accusation.

In any case, Asher did not respond to my original Third Opinion post until almost two months later; you quickly advised him to make whatever changes he felt were best only shortly after his return to that page within a few days, on March 28. Asher, thus, violated WP:ONUS here for the first time, making changes during an ongoing discussion, doing so AFTER I entered the discussion with my Third Opinion (my 3O is post found here, see the date and compare it to when the first change was made by Asher). I do not, however, blame you for any of this; Asher was already aware of this policy. Of course, his second time violating WP:ONUS was yesterday; I tried to set things back to the old, long-standing version with rationale provided on the Talk Page, and he reverted with this.

Allow me to also add, from WP:TALKDONTREVERT: Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Thus, my lack of response would not be grounds for changes regardless, even if such "silence" had occurred.

I disagree with you that Asher's perspective should be considered more leniently as a party who has been dealing with sockpuppetry. It is one thing to hurl accusations and attacks during the investigation process, which took until June 3, and an entirely other matter to continue making these accusations and attacks AFTER the case as closed, as he has done. All of this is substantiated with evidence in my ANI post right above.

As for you saying you're unaware how the sockpuppet investigation case was concluded, again, please review my ANI post above. My case closed without sanctions; I am cleared.

I appreciate your professionalism MWFwiki; rest assured I am not reporting you in this ANI, only M.S. Asher. However, any input you have on the situation is obviously appreciated, since you are an involved party on the article's Talk Page. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

So, broadly, I'm not certain you're going to find the relief you're seeking (and I'm not entirely clear what that relief may be, frankly - it's best to clarify what sanctions you're seeking - and remember, sanctions are not punitive, they are preventative). Do I think that M.S. Asher perhaps went a bit too far with their claims regarding socking? Yeah, slightly. As far as your content dispute... I think it remains precisely that, even with your ONUS concerns. A disagreement between two editors over a policy is not exactly a behavioral issue, even if you feel that the other party is interpreting or even wielding policy incorrectly.

As I stated earlier, I believe M.S. Asher's behavior and actions must viewed through the lens of someone that was, indeed, dealing with extensive socking. Talk:Germany-Iran relations had, what, 4 confirmed socks on it? @Confluencer/@Confluencerer/@KingofEdits103/@LordSer8000 - all banned.

And again, I agree, DrMelonsPhD; this is not your problem. You are an editor in good-standing and should be treated as such. But I think you can understand why M.S. Asher might deserve a bit of latitude on this, right?

There has been little to no interaction on this report, and I'm not sure there will be. Perhaps Blue-Sonnet would be willing to chime-in.

Instead of letting this die on the vine, here is what I propose: DrMelonsPhD and M.S. Asher; if you both would agree to my moderation, I am happy to sit-down and review the actual content dispute behind this. I have a relatively extensive history of providing what are — in my opinion — fair and impartial Third Opinions.

Preferably, I'd like to see @M.S. Asher apologize for jumping the gun a bit regarding your status, but I can't force them to do that. Otherwise, as I said, if you both feel comfortable with my trying to settle the actual content dispute, we can do that.

Otherwise, without that (or without another editor volunteering to do the same if either of you object to my involvement) I feel that I must propose that you both be subject to the restriction of not editing Germany-Iran relations (and related pages) without first obtaining a clear and unambiguous consensus for your proposed edit(s).  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I've said before that the likelihood of input from other editors goes down significantly in proportion to the length of posts and this is a good example of that. Whilst the writing from all parties is clear it's not entirely concise, so it's difficult for uninvolved editors (who are volunteers and doing this in their own time) to read through everything to figure out what's going on. That's just the nature of a voluntary project like this - we work on whatever we feel like doing and aren't obligated to do something at don't want to do.

I think it would be a great idea to accept moderation from someone who's already familiar with the situation, to try to stop this from escalating further - I applaud MWFwiki for offering to do this.

For whatever reason, be it length or lack of obviously-actionable policy violations, there's not been much interaction from the community on this matter - moderation will hopefully be a first step in resolution.

If disruption continues after moderation, then we'll hopefully have a clearer picture of what needs to happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Yes, I recognize the lack of engagement is due to the length; I will keep the report up regardless, it may take a while for engagement to occur but I am fine with that. As far as I am aware, there is no time limit on ANI reports. If an admin closes this discussion after some time due to no engagement, then so be it. I will perhaps then relist it in a more concise manner, if permitted. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki: I will address your points here in two separate sections to keep my prose organized. The first section will address this current ANI report and your points on it, while the second section will address the Germany-Iran relations Talk Page and your suggestions for moving forward.

1)This report:

You have informed me that any suggested relief or sanctions I seek should be preventative, not punitive; I am certainly aware of this policy. You have also mentioned I should clarify the sanctions I am seeking. A read of my ANI post will explicitly show that both of these elements are present in my report. I have overtly described that I recommend an indefinite ban on M.S. Asher’s account, or a topic ban on Nazi-related topics, with a preference for the former. My rationale was rather clear: M.S. Asher has repeatedly violated WP:ONUS policies on the relevant contested Talk Page we are all involved in, and he has been warned about this also in relation to that page and other pages; this is evidenced with diffs above. He has been warned several times by a multiplicity of different users, but has not ceased his misconduct. It is thus obvious that this pattern will continue if he is permitted to participate or edit on Wikipedia. This exact pattern is further observable with his personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry, despite a close of the investigations file without any sanctions on my account; again, evidence is located above with diffs.

This leads me to directly my next point. You have repeated that M.S. Asher has been dealing with four sockpuppet accounts and must therefore be given latitude; I wholeheartedly disagree on this latitude point, once again. His accusations are endless, and despite evidence to the contrary (demonstrated by my account’s standing and the close of the file), he deliberately elected not to engage with me in good faith and continued his attacks after the close of the investigation file.

By your own admission MWFwiki, M.S. Asher did, in fact, go too far in his behavioral misconduct and disruptions, on multiple fronts. An apology is thus insufficient. He is unequivocally in WP:NOTHERE territory now.

Everything I am elaborating here, by the way, is already laid out in greater depth within my ANI post, with diffs and evidence provided. I am merely re-establishing the above points here, only tailoring a response to you.

I also object to your claim that a disagreement over a policy is not a behavioral issue; this is not entirely correct. It is dependent on the policy and circumstances. For example, edit-warring by breaching the 3RR repeatedly is a policy violation and a bannable offence, while adding Original Research, for instance, is not always like that, as OR is more debatable. (This is also why my Policy Argument on the Germany-Iran Talk Page was not specifically an accusation of misbehavior, as M.S. Asher disingenuously claims.) I would extend repeated WP:ONUS violations as being analogous to the edit warring policy severity, not least because it necessarily involves edit warring in some form, but also because it’s a clear-cut perversion of policy. In this specific case, MWFwiki, M.S. Asher is already very aware of the proper procedure due to being warned several times, as I evidenced above with diffs; this strongly supports the preventative solutions I advised (a ban or a topic ban).

I believe that addresses your concerns with respect to this ANI report. Please let me know if I missed anything.

2)The Talk Page Discussion

I would absolutely invite you to provide your added opinion on Talk:Germany-Iran relations. In fact, both M.S. Asher and I have been wanting you to provide it for a short while now; if you look at that Talk Page, we have been asking for your input. Obviously, I will not speak for Asher as of the current moment, in case his view has changed; however, we have been tagging you on the page, hoping for your provided thoughts and perspectives.

My assumption by your proposed role as moderator is that you provide your opinion and then moderate the discussion between the three of us, with you yourself continuing to provide opinions as the discussion progresses; correct?

Just so you are aware, the history of that page is rather quite extensive; it took me, initially, a few hours to read everything and come up with my own Third Opinion, but with the recent developments beginning with my involvement a few months ago it might take you slightly longer to grasp everything. I would, thus, be more than willing to patiently await your lengthy response.

A few points to clarify, however: as I understand it, your added opinion does not necessitate the implementation of your (potential) proposed changes. A Third Opinion, if I am not mistaken, is simply the added involvement of another party with hopes of a compromised change being reached. If the disagreements continue, then no resolution is reached and nothing changes. I am clarifying this because, based on his replies on the article’s Talk Page, M.S. Asher seems to believe your input will necessarily lead to the implementation of your Third Opinion, as if it is a required policy. I am NOT saying this because I intend on dismissing your contributions; quite the contrary, I intend on giving them serious consideration. I am certainly willing to hear your thoughts; please read everything on the Talk Page. I do not doubt you will provide a fair and unbiased opinion on the topic; you seem reasonable and professional.

However, before you begin your study of the material on that Talk Page, I feel I must suggest a preliminary condition: the relevant information on Germany-Iran relations must be set back to its old pre-dispute text in alignment with WP:ONUS and WP:QUO; this older information has been on that article since 2008 and no consensus was ever reached to change it. It was only changed through M.S. Asher’s disruptive changes and recent revert, as you have already read from my ANI report above. It is entirely appropriate to make this change before discussions continue with your added opinion. Again, MWFwiki, by your own admission, M.S. Asher went too far with his behavior in this respect; you use the adjective “slightly” but nevertheless the result is the same.

Once this is done, I would then wholeheartedly agree that restrictions are placed on editing the contested material on Germany-Iran relations (and related articles) for me and Asher, until a final consensus is reached. That is, after all, the proper thing to do in any consensus discussion. I believe the same would apply to you once you provide your added Third Opinion, as it would convert you into a non-neutral party, but correct me if I am wrong regarding your account specifically.

If the three of us can all agree to these conditions, I will terminate this ANI report immediately; we will then continue our discussions on that Talk Page. If we do not all agree on this, then we will still continue discussing things on the Talk Page to seek consensus regardless, with MWFwiki’s added opinion, but this ANI report will stay up until admins eventually chime in with their decisions, or until this is closed. In either case, I agree that your opinion would be a great addition, MWFwiki.

My conditions here are more-than-fair, considering compliance with me here would allow M.S. Asher to get off the hook scot-free despite his severe misconduct, especially given that sanctions against him are possibly in order; it also would restore the rightful policy-compliant version of the text on that article (as it should be done). I am truly being more than kind with this suggestion. I should overtly communicate with you both here, too, that I may still restore that content to its old pre-dispute text regardless, as I undoubtedly have policy on my side, along with your agreement, MWFwiki, that Asher did go "slightly" too far in his WP:ONUS violations. At the very least, however, if we all come to an overt agreement on this restoration point, it would be more friendly and communicative, in the spirit of mutual encyclopedia-building and policy-adherence and it will ensure the deletion of this report, much to Asher's benefit.

I believe the reason admins have held off reviewing this report so far is because of its length; in due time, perhaps admins will review this report and chime in. I continue to be confident in my report.

Take all the time you need to consider my response here. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I understand your frustration(s) and sentiment, and I certainly don't mean to brush-off your concerns. I went and re-examined your initial filings and points of concern/your evidence. Yes, I think that @M.S. Asher went too far with their accusations, particularly sans evidence apart from coincidence (which is not evidence, unless we're into DUCK territory). I won't qualify this statement as with "slightly" or what have you. I agree that they were too free with their accusations/aspersions.

Do I think what we have here is worth an indefinite ban? No. And I see no support for a CBAN, otherwise. Perhaps someone will disagree, but this filing was made 4-5 days ago, now, and there has been no involvement outside of us. I hope that changes, to be clear, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Part of My hesitance is that @M.S. Asher has always responded to concerns, they've always provided explanations/defenses, and have seemingly been receptive to constructive criticism, from what I can gather from their User Talk page.

Without circling-back to the issues on Talk:Germany-Iran relations fully just yet, I'd like to address the possibilities for sanctions. An article ban or a wider topic ban is, again, a bit of a stretch in my mind. We must WP:AGF; we must separate behavioral concerns from content concerns. ...anyways, I digress.

Allow me to propose this: If @M.S. Asher agreed not to edit Germany-Iran relations without first obtaining clear consensus for the proposed edit(s) [at least until we resolve the primary content dispute, but I would suggest they seek consensus for major content edits beyond this period, as well], and they were to accept this a warning that their conduct was violative of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, and general behavioral policies and guidelines [and an apology wouldn't hurt], would you, @DrMelonsPhD, accept this as a solution for now and withdraw your filing? You would obviously be free to re-file, and you would have a warning to back you if you did so. As I mentioned... it's been 4-5 days. It is possible this is the only interaction you're going to get on this. On the flip-side; @M.S. Asher, I have to advise you, if you don't accept this offer, another user or even an admin could look-over all this (and still can, to be fair) and determine that you deserve harsher sanctions.

As far as what will happen with the article itself, I am happy to mediate. The only reason I haven't responded there so far is because this was active. As far as @DrMelonsPhD's request that we revert the article to a certain state, I think that is reasonable, at least while we hash things out.

Assuming you both agree to this, I will:

1. I will NAC this out as a withdrawn filing with @M.S. Asher voluntarily-accepting a warning for their behavior.

2. Advise that @DrMelonsPhD revert the page in-question to the stable state they mentioned.

3. The three of us will then start an informal mediation process.

If either party objects to these points then... that's that. It stays open until it's archived or until someone else closes it (or we reach an alternative agreement). If another party or an administrator wishes to chime-in and also aren't supportive of my proposal, then that will also keep this open.  — MWFwiki (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MWFwiki: Your proposition is entirely reasonable. I accept these proposed conditions, I think they are fair.

To reiterate your terms, for clarity: if

(1) M.S. Asher agrees not to edit Germany-Iran relations (and also, to not edit this specific contested information to his favor as found on other related pages too) until a final consensus is reached on [[Talk:Germany-Iran relations]; and

(2) We all agree that I restore the Germany-Iran relations page back to the stable pre-dispute text to fix the WP:ONUS issue, without this text being changed again until a final consensus is reached on the matter, agreed upon by all parties;

then I will terminate this ANI report and we can chalk this up to (another) warning for M.S. Asher. Thanks for your professionalism and reasonable proposal MWFwiki; this is entirely fair.

If M.S. Asher disagrees, then this report will stay up; perhaps once closed without a decision, I will relist it but with more concise information to receive more engagement; this would especially be the case if disruptive behavior continues from M.S. Asher. In other words, I would not drop the issue, in such a scenario.

M.S. Asher: Please note that MWFwiki is of the opinion, as one can clearly observe by his response, that the restoration of the stable pre-dispute text being restored, is, in fact, totally fair. The only reason I highlight this from his response is because on Talk:Germany-Iran relations you asked for his input regarding your recent June 16 reversion; you now have your answer.

Anyways, MWFwiki: if M.S. Asher agrees to these terms, we can then officially initiate your mediation process and a continuation of the Talk Page discussion, now with your involvement. Thanks again for your professionalism. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to all of this, with the following caveats:

1. Obviously @M.S. Asher must agree to these terms.

2. Regarding changing/reverting the article, we would need to be careful, as there are probably other, good-faith and constructive edits made there in the last 18 years. There have seemingly been at least a couple hundred edits in that time. I'm not sure I could justify rolling-back 18-years. While I think a rollback to some stabler point is appropriate, I'm not sure precisely where that is. I haven't looked, as if M.S. Asher is not inclined to agree with these proposals then I'm not certain where that leaves us.

There is has been no community consensus for anything, no administrator comments, and I'm not even sure if re-filing would help (or would even be appropriate, frankly... I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but it's obviously not appropriate to file ANI reports until you obtain a result favorable to you; you might get away with a single re-file, but I would advise caution). I am still willing to continue the Third Opinion process, regardless, once this is closed, to be clear.  — MWFwiki (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I would drop this ANI report only if M.S. Asher agrees to these terms.

On the point of reverting the article from M.S. Asher's recent inappropriate June 16 edit back to the stable pre-dispute version, it is a very easy fix. If you check the edit history on Germany-Iran relations, I had already restored the proper stable version on the page prior; M.S. Asher simply reverted which resulted in the latest version of the article.

Fixing this issue, therefore, is only one edit away, not a couple hundred (maybe two edits away, as a temp user fixed a typo in-between). Feel free to take a look at the edit history yourself, here. My edit was on June 12, M.S. Asher's imposition of his own edit, without consensus, occurred on June 16; this being the second time he did this. Thus, the restoration/rollback point is not a complicated problem.

If M.S. Asher does not agree with your proposal, here, then I will likely revert back to the old pre-dispute text anyway. If you read Asher's edit summary for his edit, he is mainly concerned that "other parties" (meaning you, MWFwiki) have not chimed in as it relates to my policy reason for setting things back to the old text (these being WP:ONUS and WP:QUO); he further asked for your input regarding his reversion on Talk:Germany-Iran relations. Well, now you have in fact provided your input, here: you have agreed that Asher did, in fact, go slightly too far in disrupting WP:ONUS and engaging in unjustified sockpuppet accusations. Since this satisfies his concerns, which he provided as the rationale for the edit summary, I can definitely set things back to the old text regardless.

All this agreement does, really, is have me agree to withdraw this filing and save Asher the possibility of sanctions, much to his benefit. I already described this above.

On your last point, I agree: if Asher does not agree to these terms, I will try re-filing one last time in a more concise manner to gain more engagement from admins. After all, the only reason this report has not obtained engagement is due to length alone. M.S. Asher has multiple charges against him, so the likelihood of sanctions against him in some form is, in my opinion, likely. I will certainly not be spamming reports in hopes of obtaining a favorable result.

Anyway, let us stop creating clutter and lengthening this thread more than it needs to be; there is a lot to read here for Asher and others. It is best not to make it longer. Any "what if" scenarios can be held off for a later discussion, as there is indeed a possibility that Asher agrees to your proposal, MWFwiki. I have agreed; let's see what he says. We shall await his response.DrMelonsPhD (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I glossed over the discussion and I dont have any immediate objections to the proposal by MWFwiki but Ill need more time to review since I’ve been busy and dont have more time atm. I can get back tomorrow night perhaps. M.S. Asher (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine; it is quite the lengthy thread. Take all the time you need to respond. DrMelonsPhD (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A disagreement between two editors over a policy is not exactly a behavioral issue, even if you feel that the other party is interpreting or even wielding policy incorrectly. Especially a disgreement over ONUS, which is one of the most heavily-disputed lines of text on any policy page. People have literally been arguing over its meaning for years; I don't think it's ever appropriate to sanction someone over it unless they're blatantly violating other policies in the process (ie. they're clearly edit-warring), and even in the case of edit-warring, anyone else edit-warring in a two-sided edit-war would face the same sanctions, by default; there is definitely no agreement that ONUS creates a situation where edit-warring to keep something out is "favored" over edit-warring to keep something in. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Less is more. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Lux. clubs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philk84#%F0%9F%91%8B%F0%9F%91%86

seems as person (or his wikipedia impersonator) unrelated to the topic, citing 4 year old article / while salary source is recently updated

until solution, best regards ~2026-35474-96 (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:OUTING data removed, redacted and OS requested. @~2026-35474-96 do not post other peoples personal information. KylieTastic (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It is common knowledge in Luxembourg that the National Division is semi-professional at best. All other league clubs are mostly amateur. As most players have a second job, I doubt the information from the Erieri source covers all players, and takes into account their football only wage - which, as the user states in their updates, would put some players at below minimum wage.

Yes, my main source for this is 4 years ago, but Luxembourgish football is hardly evolving and the clubs are still required to be not for profit organisations (ASBL).

What steps can I take to prevent this user (who is already on their second temporary account) adding "professional" to articles that cannot be proved? I know BlueSky can't be used as a source, but an RTL journalist answered this post last year for me. I can provide the link, but I'd rather not as it contains my personal bluesky account.

Phil 12:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a consolidation of what reliable sources have published, in accordance with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If the information isn't published in a reliable source, it can't go into an article. @~2026-35474-96 sources should be added as an inline citation, putting it in an edit summary is not sufficient.

Using a source to say that a wage makes a player or club professional is original research and not permitted. You need a reliable source that explicitly states this is a professional club/player and cannot decide this yourself.

Please also note that ANI is for chronic, long term behavioural issues that can't be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes, this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

user can try luck by checking if more admins prefer 2022 or 2026 sources, meanwhile find sources how many top clubs are out of "minimum pro wage"

this should conclude my section ~2026-35474-96 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Admins don't deal with content disputes, this is something you need to discuss with the Wikipedia community on the relevent article Talk page. But the bottom line is that Wikipedia can only summarise what reliable sources explicitly any clearly say; we can't take source A (e.g wages) and source B (definitions of professional players/clubs) and make an analysis of what they mean together - that would be synthesis, a form of original research.

You can instead try to find reliable sources that state a club/player is professional level, and use that as a source - if you find any, you can ask what other editors think on the article Talk page before adding them since there's been a previous dispute. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet While I agree that admins should be a last resort for content disputes, this user (on their third temporary account) is consistently using a non-reliable source and assuming information that is not present. The only source is from 4 years ago because, surprise surprise, in a country where football is not professional, they do not write about it every day. Also, there is no date associated with the erieri article, which doesn't mean it's 2026 and therefore "newer".

At what point can we get admins involved, and what could they do in this situation? Phil 06:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope people would try talking to them first and see if it's something that could be solved through educating them - I don't know what their previous accounts are or what's been done about that before this thread was raised. Has anyone tried this with them before now? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I have posted a message on their talk page asking them to stop as their source doesn't state one way or the other the status of a club. But as it's a temporary account, they can just use another (as they did after their first round of edits). I have also mentioned in the change messages of the articles concerned that the source is not reliable, that clubs are not professional. It's been removed from several clubs before with the same justifications, and that's always stuck - but this user seems (so far) adamant to insist every club they edit are professional with a source that only mentions an average salary from an unknown date and sample size.

I am still reading through all the Wikipedia processes for this kind of thing as it's the first time this has happened for me, so if I'm doing something wrong, or not doing something, please let me know. Phil 07:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Blue-Sonnet, there had been a discussion at User talk:Philk84, but the TA then decided to escalate here. There is also now Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Luxembourgish_football_question which is hopefully a better location to gain consensus. Philk84 admins can get involved if a consensus was found but a user kept insisting their interpretation was correct. Also admins could get involved if it turned into edit warring. KylieTastic (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and sorry I wasn't clear earlier! I was looking on the article and TA Talk pages for any discussion before the ANI report, but multiple pages, TA's and no diffs can make things rather confusing. It looks like I missed Philk84's page out whilst looking.

It does look like the discussion is finally in the right place and I'm hopeful the TA (and everyone involved) will be receptive to consensus - the fact that they're asking for advice is a good sign of that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://wsfc7.com/football-salary-in-europe-by-league-from-amateur-to-professional-2026/

for the record they fell in lower pro category... institute asked to add research source as well ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The TA is spamming articles with this unreliable source, that does not make any mention of Luxembourg, let alone any of the individual clubs. They are being disruptive, and unwilling to wait for a consesus to form that supports their POV. Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/luxembourg-s-football-league-struggling-to-attract-talent-says-agent/86373714.html

This source by mr Phil proves my edits, or it is private agent opinion, anyway accept club's right to be lower professional, above semi pro and under mid pro (instead discuss more encyclopedic descriptions)

final reply on this, thanks ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is you are being disruptive and edit warring. Discuss the issue at WT:FOOTY and wait for support BEFORE making changes. [8] shows that you are not here to build a consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Welp, it's definitely an ANI issue now - looks like my optimism was unfortunately unfounded. Hopefully the underlying IP block will stop this from escalating further. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

User is using an array of Temp Accounts, the latest of which is making some very worrying comments : i will keep returning until committing suicide. Spike 'em (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This is very rapidly becoming a conduct issue. It appears that Ad Orientem has blocked the range for a year, as they continued this as User talk:~2026-35751-35. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs on their User page it only says the block is for 48h. I assume the year block is reported elsewhere? Phil 09:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It's on the page for the underlying IP address, but I cannot link that here as it requires WP:TAIV access to view the IP address, which is consistent among these TAs that this editor has been using. Anyone else with access can at least verify that this is the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I understand that this is kind of annoying and I am strongly against this WMF policy change. But I'm also strongly against me getting into hot water! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

they are back : ~2026-35858-44 (talk · contribs) Spike 'em (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked TA and underlying /24 range. They may be back as it's likely they may have access to the /16 range but that looks like it would start to affect others. KylieTastic (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Spike 'em: They returned as ~2026-36224-75 (talk · contribs) - is there nothing we can do except make a new block each time they make a TA? They also appear to be making some very disturbing comments over on the Project Football discussion

Phil 06:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic, @CoffeeCrumbs, @Spike 'em. Please can you help me? They are writing on my talk page in other Wikipedias: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhilk84&diff=30718887&oldid=30715323

But more importantly, they are posting identifying information which I believe is not permitted and removed on a previous page by KylieTastic? https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Notifications/Article_reminders&diff=prev&oldid=30718889

Please can you ask for this to be removed? I'm not sure what the relevance is to that topic, but I believe this user has it out for me personally as they do not appear to be targeting the other Users who have assisted me in removing their unfounded claims. Phil 06:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Phil, as that is over on meta there is nothing I can do over here, the sites are all separate. I had one similar message over on my commons page. I see that they have been globally blocked now. You can always post to meta:Steward requests/Global in future. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also had a message at Commons; I can only hope this person gets bored soon. They obviously know enough to check on the sister projects which indicates they are likely a long-term disruptive editor. Spike 'em (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Mostly these types of people give up if no one responds to them. Hopefully they will get board soon. If not we have several options we can take to stop them, like blacklisting that particular url they are obsessed with, or maybe temporary semi-protection of target articles. @Philk84 I requested meta oversight for the users doxing attempts, which have just been processed. If you have any similar issues you can request oversight for the particular site by following the information on meta:Oversight_policy. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reporting Malicious Updating of Information

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

---

how do we report malicious updating of information ~2026-31924-24 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for issues of editor conduct, not content. If there are behavioral issues with particular editors please name them. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Afrika Mayibuye Movement, article, the issue of editor conduct appears to be your conduct. [9]. You've attempted to add your own personal editorializing, and you changed prose in the article to no longer be in line with the source provided (and didn't provide a new source as one would for a legitimate change in information). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

They've moved onto Special:Contributions/~2026-35347-68, been reverted several more times and the page has now been protected. I gave them an edit warring warning to cover things, but hopefully that's put an end to it for now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 06:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Editmksport adds teams without sources and not communicating

Was thinking between here and the vandalism/dispute board but decieded for here, if wrong just tell me. Editmksport (talk · contribs) is adding teams to the 2026 IHF Men's Club World Championship over and over again (example) and before that even changed the host country and added teams where the tournament have not even started (my removal). I asked him on his talk page and the article page for the sources that those teams are competing. I even included a source [10] that so far only 2 teams have a place (before Burgan won the Asian title). He does not communicate and just reinstates the teams without any sources. I also have other editors pinged on the article talk page and nothing was found for the teams he added. I hope we can get the editors attention, so we can discuss all that stuff. Kante4 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like in their month-long tenure here as an editor, Editmksport has never posted to a Talk or User talk page before. I agree that we need to get their attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

When you look at the article right now ([11]), teams are made up, some qualification tournaments are yet to be held. Will revert it again (even though i did so a lot already), but yeah, (sadly) something needs to be done as this will continue as we have seen. Kante4 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

They're continuing to edit [12] so I've posted a reminder ping on their Talk page.

@Editmksport please stop editing and respond here as soon as you can. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Could be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU or alternatively its possible because theyre so new that they're unfamiliar with how talk pages work. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately - I saw they had email enabled and hoped that pinging might force a new notification, it's sometimes poked a recalcitrant editor into replying before now.

They've not edited since my post, so I've got no idea whether it worked or not (probably the latter). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Would not count on that after the previous behaviour but will have to see. If he stops, ok, if he discusses, that would be better. Kante4 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears this isn't working, they have made new edits now. We might need to take stronger measures, surely they must either know by now (they've been given multiple notifications) or they're unable to get these notifications/don't know they're getting them. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Or they sadly ignore them. Could also possible be a language barrier but that does not mean to just not communicate. Kante4 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It does look like they need a mainspace block, at least until they talk to us - communication is required. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support a mainspace block to try to get them to talk to us. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Now they add tons of new players to a football team here and other clubs. A quick google search shows no news of them being there (from what i found) and it just too many tbh. Kante4 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, a mainspace block seems necessary at least temporarily until this editor comes here and discusses. Even if it's not a case of ANI flu, the longer this goes on, the more mess there may be to have to try and rewind. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger

 – — Knightoftheswords 10:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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

---

Larry Sanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Post-move discussion

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

---

I was not aware that the move had consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't. 4 people participated in the discussion and none of them have particularly clear votes (e.g. "yes" in bold). jolielover♥talk 10:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well except for sapphaline, who opposed. Still, no consensus. jolielover♥talk 10:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was moved BOLDLY by @Knightoftheswords281. Unorthodox, but yes, the discussion hadn't been given time to complete... 11WB (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Unorthodox" is not how I would put it. "Uncool" is I how I would put it. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The page was large enough that moving it to a different page was actually necessary. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

and it was reverted here once. I’m not sure it’s a good idea to edit war over the location of a massive ongoing conversation. Morwen (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was reverted once by @Jolielover who requested a reason be given. Which I then provided. That is not an edit war. 11WB (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Technicaly 3RR is not a bright line. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But that's your opinion. jolielover♥talk 10:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not particularly excited by the idea of ANI subpages for individual users, but I'll admit this point of process isn't really my biggest priority right now. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I proposed it formally as being bold would have caused exactly this. But it's done now and has been challenged at MfD, so a consensus will form... just in the wrong order. 11WB (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The shit thing about moving to a subpage is that there’s no longer a link to the most recent comment. FWIW I don’t think this was necessary Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also meant that anyone subscribed to the discussion is now no longer receiving notifications from replies, nor will they have the new page on their watchlists.

While I appreciate the boldness (and the fact that ANI is now loading much faster on my phone...), I think a bit more planning wouldn't have gone amiss. In solidarity, nil ^nz 11:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to take part of the responsibility for this. It should resolve itself without much issue. (Maybe a WP:HISTMERGE is possible somehow?) 11WB (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Subscriptions can be preserved by keeping the initial heading and comment (in particulr, the signature) intact. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why the page was moved. Actually it a section of the ANI. So why was this section moved? Something like this seems to create a mixed up or confusing situation. I wound up on the MFD page for Sanger's proposed project. Not the ANI thread. This needs to fixed. It has a significant amount of participation. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger. It is probably best to concentrate discussion there. CMD (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean there are two discussions going on at the same time? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully not, further discussion about the move should ideally go on the MFD page so this doesn't become an incomprehensible sprawling mess - especially since that was the idea behind the move in the first place. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet:. OK thanks very much. I see now, what happened. In light of what you just wrote it makes sense. I will just go with the flow here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What a clusterfuck. In the future, please let administrators administer the administrators' noticeboard. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What voorts said. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite. This is a situation that ought to be handled with the utmost of probity. Seat-of-the-pants page moves don't fly. Ravenswing 13:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, that I agree with voorts, Girth, and Ravenswing. I was thinking, there is a process that takes place and that should have been allowed to happen. This is certainly not the first thread that had a large amount of participation, or other contingencies, in the history of ANI---14:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC) --Steve Quinn (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I strongly object to anyone who is not an admin messing with the structure of ANI, and to the fact that I just happened by accident to find out that I won't be notified about new comments in a discussion I am following. I request that someone who is an admin undo this change. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf of @Knightoftheswords281. The proposal I opened should have been left to an admin to close. 11WB (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't apologize on behalf of anyone you don't represent.

You could apologize for having reverted the revert that would have stopped what is currently happening, for you already were involved in nominating the move. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It likely would have been reverted anyway ([13]), I understand that this was handled poorly however, and I own my part in it. I'm happy to apologise for that, of course. 11WB (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. At some point we're going to have to codify that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So now we're having a discussion on a separate page about whether the discussion should be on a separate page? 😂 How is this anybody's idea of "better"? Levivich (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

does my ivote to indef Sanger still hold? I'm so confuseled. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 17:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: AKA Walter not a grumpy old man Ego. Yes, your Ivote is on the appropriate page - I found the ivote at 12:24, 20 June 2026. I think searching through the edit history of the page to find the diff will be too much work for me. However, you can use the "Find" function in your browser to find good ol' Walter on this page: [14]. Since you are really Roxy the dog, I want to let you know that I have always wanted to say Woof! Woof! to you. I'm probably not the first, but there it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh good. I'm hoping that a panel close of all this Sanger related nonsense will ultimately ensue, as I dont think we have an Admin with the stones to do it alone. Perhaps one will raise their head above the ballustrade/um/battlements, but I'm not holding my breath. I have to express my amazement at the cheek of somebody who has only made two constructive edits since they were sacked from being co-founder walking roughshod through our well established policy and guideline as if it didn't affect them, only us. Send him away please, asap. Thanks. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 19:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Walter, I totally agree about Sanger. Walking rough-shod over policy, guidelines and community without any regard for the very many editors doing fine work on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As if the mess weren't confusing enough already with all the walls-of-text, the bane of easy to follow discussion. A total clusterfuck. Carlstak (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Is it sabotage? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Admin MSGJ has indefinitely blocked User:Larry Sanger

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

---

MSGJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has indefinitely blocked Larry Sanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and not even left a talk page notice on Sanger's talk. What is going on? Why is this still split off of WP:ANI so fewer people can see it? 15:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

not even left a talk page notice on Sanger's talk is not true. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Completely inadequate. In such an extraordinary situation, a handful of words on a user page with no closing summary, no explanation beyond "enacting consensus", no effort to weigh various arguments or outcomes... is exceptionally poor judgment. I'm not disputing (or endorsing) the outcome, but if ever there was a case that needed some extra communicative care and attention for the good of the project, this is it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

what an enormous clusterfuck this has been. From the unchecked soapboxing to the procedural dysfunction, all we've really done here is give credence to Larry's WP:POINT Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Echoing @Rhododendrites. MSGJ characterized it as a block, not a ban. Even if it's a block, there's still no closing summary and failed to demonstrate their evaluation of supporting and opposing arguments to arrive at a consensus. If there is one way to really muddy the waters of the CBAN, this is it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the amount of text already used by all parties involved, including Sanger, succinct was probably the way to go, imo.

And re: blocking before a close, that's not unreasonable. If there's a strong enough consensus, an admin can block on their own authority and the currently-expressed consensus while the community finalizes things. If the community decides that's not correct for the final action, they can say so, and the block log will indicate the final decision. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Leaving my 2c here that an admin unilaterally blocking an editor during a cban discussion -- absent some true emergency reason like death threats -- is unreasonable. It's also unreasonable to expect editors to opine a second time, on the propriety of the unilateral block in addition to the cban. It's not respectful of people's time to expect them to come back and vote again. We have a procedure (WP:CBAN), admins should just follow the procedure. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

User:CommanderF1 — request for review of possible disruptive use of Wikipedia processes

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

---

I am requesting administrator review of a pattern of editing activity by CommanderF1. My concern is not the volume of edits itself, but repeated use of maintenance processes where the basis appears unclear.

Examples: [[15]] — deletion nomination reason [[16]] — speedy deletion log for multiple schools on the same day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiabulls — deleted relevant section on Regulatory actions and controversies

I would appreciate review of whether these actions comply with Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35890-56 (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I am sure this is WP:REVENGE by SPA editor: User:Amitnageswar11 who has also nominated this article in revenge. He is upset because I nominated his article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kurangi_Vijayshrie_Nagraj) on AFD. He states You wasted my entire one month's hard work by posting my article in deletion. Now I have seen your article, Alexandar Soundarrajan you have more weeks than my article so why is this your live, I am also starting deletion now also this. Check this. If i am not wrong these (Amitnageswar11 and ip) are the part of this sock series: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakmarsaify. CommanderF1 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Another TA (who may or may not be the original poster) replied here with some very abusive comments in Hindi, which I have removed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's ironic that he's a paid editor himself, yet he tries to hide it by targeting and deleting other people's articles without any legitimate reason. Amitnageswar11 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Amitnageswar11, what's your previous account? Zero chance this is your first account and feels like a CU needs to check here. The tit-for-tat AFD nominations are quite obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Checkuser needed The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are some CU observations, and if another CU wants to pile in, be my guest. The OP is a logged-out user with some years experience and apparently several accounts. I (or someone else) will deal with that separately - I see no direct relevant connection at this time. The abusive TA which sometimes appears in this thread is a banned user. None of the extant users in this thread appear to be Alakmarsaify, but they are present in the general topic areas (and mostly blocked). I think the best way to describe Amitnageswar11 is that they have yet to be placed. Does that help? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to add to that, I do now see some interaction between CommanderF1 and the OP TA's accounts, unrelated to the actor scene. Other comments stand. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

And now, I've only gone and blocked a load of people in this thread. I don't see much more to do here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Ravensfire (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Keep adding unsource contents ignoring multiple warnings

Kassidy salcedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first warned this user since the user added unsourced genres sometimes ignoring the hidden messages that warn not to add unsourced genres on infobox. However, this user manually reverted my removal again and kept adding unsourced genres in some articles, so I directly warned this user by using {{Uw-genre4}}. But now I see Salcedo added unsourced genres again in two more articles, also ignoring hidden warning messages. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: It's bad practice to issue a level 4/4im warning immediately after level 1; you should progress normally, 1-2-3-4-4im. .n (happy ptide month and in solidarity) 14:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@.nhals8, although there are generally 4 warning levels available for most issues, editors are not required to provide all four sequentially before reporting a problem, and they are not required to have given all earlier levels before posting a final (level 4) warning. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good discussion of how to select warning levels: Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings/Usage and layout#Multi-level templates for vandalism — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

4im is, in fact, the equivalent of 4 as an immediate warning (where the issue is so blatant that it doesn't deserve previous escalation), not the next level. But that kind of immediate escalation is for matters like writing racial slurs in articles or doxxing users, not adding unsourced genres. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. In the future this isn't really something that merits going from 1 straight to 4, but since we're here anyway, this may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation. Literally all of their edits are mobile edits (not a single one of their edits doesn't have that tag), which means they may not be getting these notifications. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Recently this user attacked another user. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 09:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Just_the_Way_You_Are_(Bruno_Mars_song)&oldid=1360638063 ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n 09:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's beyond the pale - especially so as an edit summary of all things, can an administrator please take a look at this? In the meantime, I've stressed the importance of joining the ANI discussion to explain their actions. [17] In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by LocalF15

This user LocalF15 reverted my well-sourced edit, which added numerical data to improve the article, without giving any solid reason. And ignored my invitation to discuss on the talk page[18], instead engaging in edit-warring with other editors and got blocked [19]. I think this pattern of behavior is preventing the article from being improved and falls under Disruptive editing. This user has already received a warning for same behavior in the past. [20]

[21] Revision as of 03:45, 18 June 2026

[22] Revision as of 15:54, 18 June 2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthsvader08 (talk • contribs)

Yes, LocalF15 has been blocked for edit warring. If they start up again, further sanctions might be required, but for now this seems to have been dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

My complaint was about disruptive editing, i believe repeatedly reverting edits across multiple articles without discussing them on the talk page may fall under 'disruptive editing'. Darthsvader08 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

They were blocked for edit warring which is a form of disruptive editing. Sanctioning them again once the block expired because they participated in two different types of disruption before the block would be punitive and excessive.

Going forwards, you can report any further edit warring to WP:AN3 or come back here if it's another form of disruption. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Especially considering you too just got blocked for edit warring last month although you do seem to have partly learnt your lesson and only made one revert before heading to the talk page. Hopefully LocalF15 finally learns their lesson too and uses the talk page a lot more and reverts a lot less but if they don't that can be dealt with as it normally is. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive IP(s)

• ~2026-32261-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been disruptively editing a large number of music articles. Particularly, they pipe Chad Hugo's name to "Charles Hugo", but that is not the proper credit. ([23], compare with credit here; [24], compare with credit here) They have also been adding improper credits for other songs ([25], compare with credit here), adding incorrect categories ([26]--it is a 1999 song, not a 2000 song), and arbitrarily putting categories out of alphabetical order ([27]) Though some edits they made have been helpful, they have been warned multiple times about their disruptive editing, and they are not listening. They are also abusing multiple temporary accounts: they are beyond any reasonable doubt ~2026-28000-33, who also went through Chad Hugo-related articles to change his name to "Charles". ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I can confirm that the two accounts are linked, but it is not abuse - temporary accounts are designed to expire, that's just how they work. They can be abused to evade scrutiny, but I'm not seeing any evidence of that being the case here.

There are definitely a worrying number of templated warnings, but I want to quickly point out that nobody has taken the time to explain why there is a problem with the credits until very recently - if I was a new editor, this isn't very clear but this would make sense to me.

This isn't a validation or dismissal of the many other issues with their editing, but sometimes it's too easy to slap a template on a Talk page and call it a day. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible COI editing by User:LaffyTaffer

User LaffyTaffer has systematically removed sourced content about workplace allegations from Craig Groeschel and Life.Church articles across multiple edits on 17 June 2026.

Affected articles:

• Craig Groeschel
• Life.Church

Removal pattern:

• Diff 1359846106 - Removed workplace allegations section
• Diff 1359845871 - Removed additional sourced material
• Diff 1359845983 - Identical removals on Life.Church

Talk page documentation:

• Craig Groeschel talk discussion
• Life.Church talk discussion

The removed material is properly sourced per WP:BLP guidelines. Removal appears coordinated and systematic rather than editorial improvement.

Request: Checkuser investigation of LaffyTaffer account and IP against Life.Church organizational IPs (205.236.56.0-205.236.56.255 per WHOIS) to determine if this represents undisclosed conflict of interest editing. Additionally, request review of revision tags: my 31 May 2026 edit adding sourced material was tagged "possible BLP issue or vandalism" despite being properly sourced per WP:BLP#Controversial material. The tag should apply to the removal edits, not the addition of sourced content. Request admins correct the revision history tags accordingly. FancyFlippers (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is premature - you opened talk page discussions about this (on both talk pages) not ten minutes before you posted here. Would you like to explain why you restored the disputed content on both pages, citing these discussions, without waiting for the user's response? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I will note per WP:CUIPDISCLOSE, checkusers will not publicly connect a user account to an IP, especially not on the grounds that LaffyTaffer has reverted your edit. To be rather honest, the above does not at all prove that she has a COI. There are plenty of non-malicious reasons that these specific edits may have been reverted, such as being overly detailed (this edit trimmed a four-paragraph section that was based on a single source). – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge the timing issue and will allow discussion to proceed. However, regarding sourcing: the removed content is based on The Roys Report's April 2026 investigation (multiple named sources) and May 2026 coverage of the Holmberg lawsuit, both reliable sources per WP:RS. The removal across both related articles within minutes, citing "unsourced" when sources are present, is why I requested checkuser review—admins can assess privately whether there's a pattern worth investigating. I'm not claiming to have proven anything; I'm asking they verify. I also never asked for the admins to publicly reveal the user's IP, that is a strawman argument. FancyFlippers (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are using AI, please stop. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think they're using AI?--v/r - TP 13:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you look further down the discussion, I've included some links and analysis which I feel demonstrate likely AI-use. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing discussion to proceed, milord.

You literally just asked for a user to be checked against a specific IP address range identifying their location. If a checkuser took the specific action you requested -- and they wouldn't -- the result would either confirm or reject a user using a specific IP address. So it's disingenuous to suggest that ChatGPT you weren't asking for an IP address to be revealed. If you were right, that is precisely the result that would have happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @FancyFlippers: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is really giving me AI vibes but whatever, your edits that were reverted were simply not sourced properly. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is. LLMs adopt the tone of a criminal defence lawyer at a parole hearing. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an excellent analogy. Or, more generally, of a lawyer who knows the case is hopeless but is following their client's instructions anyway. (I have the t-shirt.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The specific complaint of "[improper] removal of sourced content" also crops up again and again in LLM-generated ANI complaints, as though content being sourced provides it with some kind of protection against being removed. Athanelar (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the edits in question, it really looks AI-generated due to several instances of WP:RO3, headings and the phrasing used.

I'll also note that most of this is unsourced; there are links to two websites from the same author in the same year, yet the middle two sources are just to that author and the year - no indication of which article they mean or if it's a completely different one, whilst the second half has no sources whatsoever. I've reverted on this basis. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

(Responding on my alt since i accidentally self blocked LaffyTaffer for a month while WP:EUI) On review of the reverts in question, this was exactly why I had removed the content in the first place. The rest of the removal on Craig Groeschel was due to the remaining content being seemingly unrelated to the subject himself as opposed to his company. I havent reviewed the current state of the articles, but trust that the editors who got there from this thread did a good job of cleaning things up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaffierTaffer (talk • contribs)

I'll reiterate that I dont have a COI with the subjects, nor am I in any way related to any TA's on that page. My only use of TAs has been to make edit requests on pages where I do have a COI in order to avoid linking this account to my real life identity.

Won't comment on potential AI use here as I'm naturally going to be biased as the one who was brought to ANI LaffierTaffer💬(they/she) 16:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The removed content was sourced to The Roys Report (April/May 2026). LaffyTaffer's stated reason was formatting/sourcing issues, those are editorial questions, not vandalism. LaffyTaffer would've been fine to edit and clean up further, but chose to do the action on both pages that... buries unfavorable reporting against these individuals. The "The articles describing this guy's assault aren't relevant to the person himself" is dishonest *at best*. This is why I've asked the admins, with the capability to look at LaffyTaffer's IP Address history, to make the assessment.

I'm satisfied that admins can review the actual information and make their own assessment. FancyFlippers (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To make this very explicit: I am LaffyTaffer. This is an alternative account. LaffierTaffer💬(they/she) 15:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Not totally sure about AI in the text itself, but the edit summary sure does resemble a straight-down-the-line 2026 AI edit summary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am on vacation until Tuesday (maybe Monday) and wont be able to give this thread the proper attention until then. For now I will note that I do not have a COI with these subjects and this ANI thread is the first time any of these issues have been raised with me. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 01:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I will furthermore use the wikibreak enforcer to impose a self block on incidental editing in the meantime to avoid giving the impression that Im ignoring this thread. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 01:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

OP hasn't substantiated any of their charges or presented any convincing argument that this isn't just a content dispute. If this isn't sufficient for a boomerang, this discussion is a waste of ANI's time, and the OP should be reminded to assume good faith and this is a collaborative project that is based on discussion and consensus, not an adversarial one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Their edit history isn't great and makes me even more certain that they're using AI - for example The Church at BattleCreek is quite a mess right now & needs fixing.

There are AI responses in the middle & external links in the body instead of inline citations - I very much doubt a human would have made this edit. [28]

Granted, the original wasn't much better but at least it made more sense. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I gave it a quick tidy-up, still needs work but it looks like a proper article now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 08:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I completely missed the two edit summaries of their edit warring "Restored sourced content per talk discussion," even though no discussion actually happened (discussion opened and then restored like 20 minutes later after no discussion). Between this and the clear, repeated use of LLM/chatbots, I really think @FancyFlippers needs to address this issue or we may need to discuss editing restrictions. Best to address this now with them only having a dozen or so edits under their belt and no long-term habits formed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup, leaving [REMOVED: "gifted leader, motivator, organizer" - marketing language without sourcing] and [REMOVED: attendance figures from 2006 - citations needed, metrics unverifiable] in the article body not only show that AI is being used, but that the output isn't even being checked before publication.

I'm concerned that most of their edits are coming from AI so they're not properly comprehending what they're writing. This would also explain the "per Talk discussion" - the AI knows there should be a discussion, but it doesn't know that one hasn't taken place yet. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, AI is the kinder guess, I think. Because if it's not AI, then it would look like someone who just doesn't care about their conduct. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Given the AI use (I knew something was off with their strangely polished, yet argumentative, reply just four minutes after I replied yesterday), I would suggest a warning to the OP about AI use and WP:BLPCRIME. I really don't see anything actionable here against LaffyTaffer. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning that they (FancyFlippers) only have 17 edits, all of which are connected to Life.Church or adjacent articles. The vast majority of which is to add large swaths of information that have mostly been reverted. I would be interested to know if they had a WP:COI in this territory. 🌻SunflowerWizard🌻 (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-36124-12 seems to be creating antisemetic edits.

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

---

Hello, I am unsure what an ANI topic requires or if I am doing the right action in this situation, so please inform me if I'm doing something wrong.

I noticed ~2026-36124-12 (talk · contribs) making on edit on Bank where they wrote "Banks around the world are owned by the entire Jewish population." (Special:Diff/1360355661) which I quickly reverted.

I looked at their contributions and they had two other edits that were both on Citibank where they wrote the CEO was Jewish and those were already reverted because there was no source provided (Special:Diff/1360354978 & Special:Diff/1360355336).

The first edit I linked seemed to be spreading beliefs of international Jewish conspiracies, and the other two present to me as vandalizing another article in an effort to support that antisemitic conspiracy.

Again, I am unsure if this is the correct course of action because I am a fairly new editor, but I would rather be overly cautious when it comes to this issue. Thank you for your time. WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Stuff like this can go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism per Wikipedia:Zero tolerance. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a better place for any commoner vandalism that remotely approaches RD2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Should I just recreate this post there then? WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Just write * {{vandal|~2026-36124-12}} <reason> ~~~~ at the bottom of the page. Keep the reason short, something like "Vandalism-only account" – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it makes sense that there would be a separate page for less complicated issues. Thank you so much for informing me of this! WhoIsConfused ( talk ) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course =) I believe there is nothing more to do here. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

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

User using misleading edit summaries

Stately2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As one may assume from the title, I've just recently come across this user who has been using misleading edit summaries across many of their edits. This editor has been editing for just about a year now (since June 24 of last year) and I don't know if it's been like this from the start or not, but many of their edits appear to be using completely misleading edit summaries. The main two I've recently encountered is this edit on America's Got Talent season 21 simply saying, "states" (does not appear to be relevant to the actual edit whatsoever) as well as this edit on an AGT template saying, "team" (again, not quite sure what that exactly means regarding this edit]. Even then just going through a few others:

• Not sure what this has to do with 'awards'
• This edit saying 'pilot' is changing a whole bunch of unrelated thing from the actual edit summary
• This edit does a whole lot of changes to the article in question, but simply saying, 'school' is not very helpful at all

Even after attempting to warn them regarding this on their talk page, they simply removed it saying, "CS1"- which the only relevancy I can see from that edit summary is the previous thread on their talk page.

Again, not quite sure how long this has been going on for, or if it is possibly for them to start using actual edit summaries, but as far as I'm currently seeing, continuing on with these kinds of edit summaries is just going to be plainly disruptive. Magitroopa (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking more of a look, this appears to have been ongoing from the start of their editing ('Thanksgiving'?...), and it appears I am not the first editor to raise concern over this edit summary issue, as @Magnolia677 raised concern over this edit (see here as well as Talk:Poteau, Oklahoma#Vague edit summary), and unfortunately, the 'discussion' at User talk:Magnolia677/Archive 33#Hi back makes me worry this may actually be more of a WP:NOTHERE issue regarding Stately. Just also came upon User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 21#Rose (singer) showing more issue(s?) (@Paper9oll). Magitroopa (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Stately2 is now edit warring on Template:America's Got Talent as well, with their 'main'(?) reverting reason being, "I don't know where you think you have this authority." If this user is now going to edit war as well with their behavior already being subject to this ANI, I would advise a block occurring sooner than later. Magitroopa (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And now in the currently-ongoing discussion on my talk page at User talk:Magitroopa#Not replying?, Stately is once again throwing the blame at everyone else but themselves, just like previously done in the above linked discussions with Magnolia677 and Paper9oll. It is becoming very apparent that Stately is WP:NOTHERE at this point and is much more interesting in battlegrounding any users who question/revert their edits. Magitroopa (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You're also participating in the edit war, they have three reverts and you have four on that page. It looks like they might have wanted to get you into trouble and you unfortunately let it happen. [29] In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

HotChickenParmesan

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

One of the many new users causing disruption in articles related to 2025–2026 Iranian protests and 2026 Iran war. Not only are they tampering with sourced info by adding their own commentary (and edit warring to preserve it), they're also trying to gaslight by denying all these claims and making accusations such as WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF and W:NPOV [30] [31] [32] (in other words, attempts at WP:GAMING). For a new user, they sure know the names of a lot policies.

Javid Shah [33] [34] [35] - changes the lede about the chant to something solely related to monarchy when it's clearly not, also removed that it is also used in Iran and not just by diaspora: "used by many' in the Iranian opposition to demonstrate opposition to the Islamic Republic by advocating for either the full restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty or solely the return of Reza Pahlavi to lead the planned transitional government. -----> "used by some in the Iranian diaspora, primarily monarchists, to demonstrate opposition to the Government of Iran by advocating for the resuscitation of the Pahlavi dynasty" This is despite the cited sources saying 1) "To outside observers, chants of “Javid Shah” may sound like a literal call for the restoration of monarchy. Inside Iran, their meaning is more complex." 2) "The chant of “Javid Shah” represents on one level the Iranian people’s desire for something it has enjoyed (or endured, depending on how one feels about monarchy) for the majority of its history." 3) "When protesters stop speaking within the language imposed by the state and instead reach for forbidden symbols, the regime’s authority begins to erode. “Javid Shah” is precisely such a symbol." 4) "He also presented elements of an emergency transitional framework, emphasizing that any future system, including the question of monarchy, must be decided by a national referendum.". 5) "Pahlavi has been non-committal about stepping into the fray. He has said he is willing to lead Iran in a transition in case protesters succeed in ousting the regime in these demonstrations".

Iranian frozen assets [36] [37];

• took American hostages --> took American diplomats hostages, this is despite the obvious fact that not all hostages were diplomats, this is clearly an attempt at whitewashing (if you can even call it that to hostage taking) hostage taking.
• and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed strikes by both sides. ----> and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran. Trying to censor the fact that Hezbollah also violated the ceasefire, per the source; 1) "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign, which has killed thousands of people and driven hundreds of thousands from their homes. Hezbollah, which did not take part in the truce ​talks, has also continued its attacks and says it ​will not give up its weapons unless Israel ⁠halts its attacks and withdraws from Lebanon. Netanyahu said the Israeli strikes on Sunday on Beirut's southern outskirts, a district known as Dahiyeh that has long been a Hezbollah stronghold, were ordered in response to Hezbollah firing toward Israel." 2) "Before Sunday, Iran had not targeted Israel since a ceasefire in the wider war started in April, although Hezbollah has done so."
• According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iran -----> According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessen directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iranian retaliation. What the source actually says; "A source familiar with U.S. ​plans told Reuters on Saturday that Washington could make Iranian assets available to Gulf neighbors to repair damage inflicted by Iran." It seems according to HotChickenParmesan, targeting civilian infrastructure of uninvolved Gulf countries [38] counts as "retaliation".

Reza Shah [39]; I'll make this one shorter since there's a lot and this is already getting long, more sourced info tampering/addition of their own commentary;

• While Pahlavi has long presented himself as an alternative to Iran's ruling clerics, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's authoritarian rule. ----> While Pahlavi has long stylised himself as an alternative to Iran's current system of governance, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's unpopular authoritarian rule.

• Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund Iranian exiles, including Pahlavi. ----> Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund adversaries of Iran, including Pahlavi.

• Protest in Gothenburg Sweden against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026 ---> Iranian monarchist protests in Gothenburg, Sweden, against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026

• During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi predicted that the Islamic regime would collapse in the near future -----> During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government would collapse in the near future

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not yet waded too deeply into the editing history, as members of my family apparently have decided to visit me and let themselves into my house upstairs, so I have to go upstairs to say hello to them or perhaps to a burglar who sounds like they're making something to eat in my kitchen. On an initial glance, it looks like a continuation of the battleground behavior that led this editor to an ANI appearance last week. There was at least one explicit Iran war edit, so I went ahead and also dropped an IPA CT notice, which I do not believe has yet been given to this editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it has become clear from this individual's edits that they are incapable of editing neutrally on the topic of recent Iran-related disputes, and are instead prone to pushing a pro-Iranian POV. However, barring one recent conflict in which both parties were at fault, their editing on India-related topics has been acceptable. The ideal result of this discussion would allow those edits while stopping the disruption on Iran articles. For this reason, I'm proposing that HotChickenParmesan receive a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless/until HCP participates in this discussion and has a convincing explanation for their edits and conduct going forward, I Support a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics also. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support proposed TBAN - their second-to-last edit had a rather aggressive edit summary [40] and is decidedly non-NPOV, such as changing the caption of an image to Reza Pahlavi's pretender ceremonial "swearing in" as the new "Shah of Iran", complete with scare quotes. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban. The quote Blue Sonnet has highlighted is egregious enough on its own, as is this addition: "Reza Pahlavi declared himself the so-called Shah of Iran, stylising himself as "Reza Shah II"" & this fascinating little disclaimer: "(even though no such title nor recognition exists following Iran's transition to a democracy following the Revolution)".

It doesn't end there... "Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government...", "of his so-called Iran Prosperity Project...", "Pahlavi has claimed that around 50,000 (a number yet to be verified)...On the heels of those unverified figures, he claimed..." aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"Reza Pahlavi declared himself the so-called Shah of Iran, stylising himself as "Reza Shah II". Please explain to me how the former is any less acceptable than this (the current version): "In 1980, following the death of his father in exile in Cairo, Reza Pahlavi declared himself Shah of Iran, adopting the title Reza Shah II".

The last I checked, the Iranian monarchy was dissolved in 1979, thereby rendering this title moot. How is adding the prefix "so-called" "egregious" if all it does is highlight the fact that the title "Shah of Iran" does not exist, nor did it exist back in 1980 when his "coronation took place.

"(even though no such title nor recognition exists following Iran's transition to a democracy following the Revolution)": what's the problem with this? If not for this clause, it would lead any user to incorrectly assume Reza is still the Shah of Iran, and that the title holds merit and recognition. Would you not hold a similar yardstick for a member of the former princely dynasties in India claiming they are kings or princes, even though no such titles nor privileges are recognised?

"Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government...", "of his so-called Iran Prosperity Project..": Was his prediction correct? If the answer to that is in the negative, I believe the objection is moot.

"Pahlavi has claimed that around 50,000 (a number yet to be verified)...On the heels of those unverified figures, he claimed...": yet again, I redirect your attention to the source, Politico. Reproducing a snippet here: "At least 50,000 officials from inside Iran’s ruling government and military have registered with a secure platform set up to coordinate the ousting of the dictatorship in Tehran, according to a prominent opponent of the regime."

Now, tell me, should we just parrot a figure an individual has ample incentive to lie about or forge? Or should we exercise reasonable scepticism and report objective facts?

"“There’s tens of thousands — the last estimate is over 50,000 at least, maybe more,” Pahlavi, whose supporters refer to him as Iran’s “crown prince,” said in a telephone interview."

Another amusing snippet from the same source. Now, please tell me how a "title" Reza bestowed upon himself and is used only by his supporters somehow lends credence to his current monarchical prerogative. Amusingly though, the royalty infobox on his page also prominently mentions his title: Crown Prince of Iran. Are we literally inventing "facts" here? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not the goal of Wikipedia to present the reader with an editorialized account of the facts or to point out falsehoods. Any such thing would have to be attributed to the sources used. I cannot imagine a case where it would be appropriate to state in any article that someone "prognosticated rather incorrectly" or call something "so-called" in wikivoice. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

"It is not the goal of Wikipedia to present the reader with an editorialized account of the facts or to point out falsehoods": where did I claim this? All I did was point out that HistoryofIran's own account of my ostensible "impropriety" is blatantly misleading. Furthermore, it seems you disregarded the fact that Reza is not the Crown Prince of Iran. No such title or distinction or privilege exists. If we proceed with what you are insinuating, why don't we just invent titles and plaster them on everyone's page? The point being: I did not point out falsehoods; I removed titles from Reza's page. He is not a member of any ruling dynasty, and he is certainly not the Crown Prince of Iran.

Furthermore, his page is a stellar embodiment in violation of Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER, chronicling every milquetoast statement, proclamation, and utterance he made. That does not sound like upholding any of Wikipedia's editorial scruples, does it? Lastly, HistoryofIran has an overt bias towards the Iranian monarchy, as evidenced by their own edit summaries. If we consider that, everything fits into place as to why they so zealously guard pages related to Iran (a clear instance of ownership behaviour).

I have temporarily withdrawn myself from editing Reza's page, and shall continue to do so for a while. This, however, does not imply HistoryofIran is in any capacity correct. They have a bias and can't bring themselves to admit to such, for reasons beyond comprehension. Any Wikipedia editor worth their salt can pore through the page for themselves and witness how appallingly it has been composed and maintained, and safeguarded by individuals such as HistoryofIran. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is basically a consolidation or repository of what reliable sources say about a subject. This way, we can stay as neutral and objective as we reasonably can and any reader can independently verify claims through inline citations.

We cannot add our own analysis or opinions - that falls under original research and commentary. This is an encyclopedia and it's just not appropriate to do this.

In all but the most obvious & generic cases, unless a reliable source makes a specific claim, please don't add it to the article. If it does, please add a citation. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Support TBAN as per CoffeeCrumbs. The big wall of text response from HCP does not make things better because it is seriously hard to understand. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

How did you adjudicate the merits of HistoryofIran's allegations without even going through my rejoinder? That itself suggests your vote is unfounded. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I read your side of the story too, don't worry, I'm saying that it's really long and I feel like some editors might not even want to read it. I'm not sure a wall of text like that is a particularly sharp response as is said in the definition for rejoinder. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, similar to what @Nil Einne pointed out on their talk page, almost all of this editor's contributions are to contentious topics and should have been reverted regardless of any editorial policy because they are not, as of yet, extended confirmed. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of my contributions are to pages dedicated to, inter alia, infrastructure projects and the like. Anyone can verify that. As to the question of reverting my contributions owing to the fact I am an autoconfirmed user, what basis do you have for suggesting that?

"reverted regardless of any editorial policy": wow, impeccable. You are now suggesting we disregard policy and go by your personal idiosyncrasies. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

ARBECR specifically allows edits made in violation of ARBECR to be reverted on sight. This has nothing to do with "personal idiosyncrasies". Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Conceded. Having said that, it still doesn't address the fact that OP suggested the bulk of my contributions are to "contentious topics". That is demonstrably false, and I suggest they recant that remark. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly is. The bulk of your edits are to post-1978 Iranian politics, social groups of South Asia/Indian military history, and a handful of Israel-Palestine-adjacent edits. All three of these are contentious topics on Wikipedia, and explicitly defined as such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Demonstrably false. I'm not sure why you keep insisting I have a fervent penchant for post-1978 Iranian topics when my contributions are far more eclectic and innumerable. My contributions range from topics such as Soviet and allied history, infrastructure, Indian pages (primarily infrastructure and the like given the propensity of India-centric pages to be peppered with grammatical faux pas), to the nobility in India and Goan colonisation of the subcontinent.

"social groups of South Asia/Indian military history": incorrect. Maybe consider scrupulously examining them before jumping to conclusions? The only pages "relevant" to this (and I am being abundantly generous in describing it as "relevant") are those of two descendants of a former royal family. How that constitutes "military history" is beyond me.

Anywho, I shall steer clear of Reza Pahlavi for a wee. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best course of action right now. I don't think anyone wants you booted off the project, some of us just have issues with your Iran-based edits (particularly your tendency to editorialize). In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall steer clear for a wee. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR only applies to indian social groups and palestine israel conflict.

it doesnt apply to all ctop areas. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended content collapsed

As much as I wish to conform to Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, I am afraid the user in question, HistoryofIran, has a checkered past that revolves around deliberately boxing fellow editors into a corner and accusing them of malice. This user has a very questionable antecedent when it comes to Iran, guarding pages related to it with vociferous tenacity, including but not limited to falsely accusing other users of engaging in battleground behaviour and malice, as is evident by the countless notices they left on my page following the edits I made. I say this following my extensive analysis of how vigilantly they seem to guard pages revolving around Iran, peremptorily jumping to reporting fellow editors to ANI upon disagreements emerging.

I will respond to each of their accusations at length, and I sincerely hope fellow editors excuse the prolixity of my speech here, given the graveness of the accusations. At the foremost, I will reproduce their frivolous accusations, followed by my rebuttal.

A)Javid Shah [93] [94] [95] - changes the lede about the chant to something solely related to monarchy when it's clearly not, also removed that it is also used in Iran and not just by diaspora: "used by many' in the Iranian opposition to demonstrate opposition to the Islamic Republic by advocating for either the full restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty or solely the return of Reza Pahlavi to lead the planned transitional government. -----> "used by some in the Iranian diaspora, primarily monarchists, to demonstrate opposition to the Government of Iran by advocating for the resuscitation of the Pahlavi dynasty" This is despite the cited sources saying 1) "To outside observers, chants of “Javid Shah” may sound like a literal call for the restoration of monarchy. Inside Iran, their meaning is more complex." 2) "The chant of “Javid Shah” represents on one level the Iranian people’s desire for something it has enjoyed (or endured, depending on how one feels about monarchy) for the majority of its history." 3) "When protesters stop speaking within the language imposed by the state and instead reach for forbidden symbols, the regime’s authority begins to erode. “Javid Shah” is precisely such a symbol." 4) "He also presented elements of an emergency transitional framework, emphasizing that any future system, including the question of monarchy, must be decided by a national referendum.". 5) "Pahlavi has been non-committal about stepping into the fray. He has said he is willing to lead Iran in a transition in case protesters succeed in ousting the regime in these demonstrations".

On the page Javid Shah: Patently false. A panoply of sources to the contrary illustrates how NOT all protestors in Iran endorse the monarchy or the usage of the said phrase, an oddity primarily used by monarchists overseas. If HistoryofIran believes citing those two sources somehow bolster insinuating it's a catchall phrase used by Iranian protestors, I have more sources to endorse the contrary.

[41] (source: Iran International); Under the section titled "Act 8: Woman, Life, Freedom" is the following: One new wrinkle was the emergence of anti-monarchy chants – “Neither Shah nor clergy” – in apparent response to the growing visibility of pro-Pahlavi slogans. Other chants expanded the targets to include several left-leaning political currents at once.

[42] (source: The Guardian); The article's central argument is that although pro-Shah sentiment exists and is visible, it is incorrect to assume that widespread anti-regime protests automatically translate into support for restoring the monarchy. Many Iranians are simply searching for an alternative to the current system rather than specifically advocating for a king.

[43] (source: National Council of Resistance of Iran): A large rally of supporters of Iranian Resistance was held in Munich on Friday, 13 February 2026, where participants chanted “No Shah, No Mullahs” and called for the overthrow of the clerical regime and the establishment of a democratic republic in Iran. The demonstration echoed the message that Iranians reject dictatorship in any form, whether theocracy or monarchy, and insist that Iran’s future must be built on popular sovereignty, democratic rights, and a secular state.

Now, pray tell, how did HistoryofIran establish that the slogan Javid Shah encompasses all strands of protestors, when overwhelming evidence suggests NOT ALL protestors are remotely predisposed to such a sloganery? Is this not a blatant instance of HistoryofIran forcibly shoving a contorted, contrive narrative down Wikipedia, clearly in breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

B) Iranian frozen assets [96] [97];

• took American hostages --> took American diplomats hostages, this is despite the obvious fact that not all hostages were diplomats, this is clearly an attempt at whitewashing (if you can even call it that to hostage taking) hostage taking.
• and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed strikes by both sides. ----> and the proposed redirection of Iranian assets could further strain a fragile ceasefire that had recently been tested by renewed Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran. Trying to censor the fact that Hezbollah also violated the ceasefire, per the source; 1) "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign, which has killed thousands of people and driven hundreds of thousands from their homes. Hezbollah, which did not take part in the truce ​talks, has also continued its attacks and says it ​will not give up its weapons unless Israel ⁠halts its attacks and withdraws from Lebanon. Netanyahu said the Israeli strikes on Sunday on Beirut's southern outskirts, a district known as Dahiyeh that has long been a Hezbollah stronghold, were ordered in response to Hezbollah firing toward Israel." 2) "Before Sunday, Iran had not targeted Israel since a ceasefire in the wider war started in April, although Hezbollah has done so."
• According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iran -----> According to a source familiar with the matter, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessen directed a team to assess the cost of damage already inflicted on Gulf allies by Iranian retaliation. What the source actually says; "A source familiar with U.S. ​plans told Reuters on Saturday that Washington could make Iranian assets available to Gulf neighbors to repair damage inflicted by Iran." It seems according to HotChickenParmesan, targeting civilian infrastructure of uninvolved Gulf countries [98] counts as "retaliation".

On the page Iranian frozen assets :"took American hostages --> took American diplomats hostages, this is despite the obvious fact that not all hostages were diplomats, this is clearly an attempt at whitewashing (if you can even call it that to hostage taking) hostage taking.": It is remarkably lamentable (yet amusing) how desperate HistoryofIran is accuse me of "whitewashing" a regime, implying as if I am affiliated with or sympathetic to the Iranian Government. If this is not an instance of breaching Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I don't know what is.

Now, onto addressing the aforesaid charge. The issue is one of precision. The Iran hostage crisis primarily involved personnel of the U.S. Embassy, and many reliable sources describe the captives as diplomats, diplomatic staff, consular staff, embassy personnel, or diplomatic and consular staff. For example, the U.S. State Department refers to the Americans held as diplomats and embassy staff, while the International Court of Justice case itself is titled "United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran." Even the Office of the Historian of the State Department writes [44] that the "Iranian students seized the embassy and detained more than 50 Americans, ranging from the Chargé d’Affaires to the most junior members of the staff, as hostages. The Iranians held the American diplomats hostage for 444 days." Perhaps the most patent evidence corroborates my account of events.

Please tell me what is more precise, in light of the foregoing: merely referring to them as "Americans" or "American diplomats"? When the Americans themselves refer to them as diplomats, as does virtually every piece of credible source (including the International Court of Justice), who is HistoryofIran to claim otherwise and accuse me of shoving a "whitewashed" account? What HistoryofIran tried to pull off was characterise the hostage crisis as one where revolutionaries simply took ordinary Americans hostage, for reasons beyond comprehension. I can hazard a guess as to why they wish to do that, but that would fall outside the bounds of propriety.

"Trying to censor the fact that Hezbollah also violated the ceasefire, per the source; 1) "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign, which has killed thousands of people and driven hundreds of thousands from their homes. Hezbollah, which did not take part in the truce ​talks, has also continued its attacks and says it ​will not give up its weapons unless Israel ⁠halts its attacks and withdraws from Lebanon. Netanyahu said the Israeli strikes on Sunday on Beirut's southern outskirts, a district known as Dahiyeh that has long been a Hezbollah stronghold, were ordered in response to Hezbollah firing toward Israel." 2) "Before Sunday, Iran had not targeted Israel since a ceasefire in the wider war started in April, although Hezbollah has done so.""

All conjecture and lacking sources. Typical. Notice how HistoryofIran is engaging in the same conduct I have repeated ad nauseam: original research and pushing a non-neutral perspective. What source do they have to corroborate this? Notice the lack of any sources. If you take their word as the truth, you are implying one can simply publish conjecture against another editor as the truth.

Now, here are the sources to corroborate my edit.

This Atlantic Council report titled "A ceasefire happened in Lebanon, but Israel seems to have missed the memo," explicitly wrote the following: "Within hours of the 4 a.m. ceasefire coming into force, Israeli troops inside Lebanon opened fire at vehicles as tens of thousands of Lebanese who had earlier fled the fighting attempted to return to their homes."

If that doesn't suffice, perhaps this Reuters report will suffice, which states that "Lebanon says Israel violates ceasefire, kills two in new airstrike".

Gee, I wonder how HistoryofIran wrote all that spiel (unsubstantiated and irrefutably false) when documented evidence from remarkably credible sources attests to the contrary. I hope this puts to rest the speculation I wrote an objectively incorrect statement or breached the neutrality clause of Wikipedia.

C) Reza Shah [99]; I'll make this one shorter since there's a lot and this is already getting long, more sourced info tampering/addition of their own commentary;

• While Pahlavi has long presented himself as an alternative to Iran's ruling clerics, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's authoritarian rule. ----> While Pahlavi has long stylised himself as an alternative to Iran's current system of governance, opinion about him remain deeply divided, with many Iranians still associating his family with the Shah's unpopular authoritarian rule.
• Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund Iranian exiles, including Pahlavi. ----> Bob Woodward wrote in 1986 that the Reagan administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to support and fund adversaries of Iran, including Pahlavi.
• Protest in Gothenburg Sweden against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026 ---> Iranian monarchist protests in Gothenburg, Sweden, against the Iranian government on 17 January 2026
• During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi predicted that the Islamic regime would collapse in the near future -----> During anti-government demonstrations in Iran in 2022 following the Abadan building collapse, Pahlavi prognosticated, rather incorrectly, that the Iranian Government would collapse in the near future

Edit #1: "Stylised himself" is a common descriptive phrase used in journalism and academic writing to describe how a political figure portrays or brands themselves. Considering the fact Reza has constantly adduced himself as an alternate institution in himself, it does not necessarily imply disbelief or criticism. The edit was intended to describe Pahlavi's self-positioning rather than to endorse the claim that he is in fact the alternative to Iran's ruling establishment. I wonder what HistoryofIran saw here that warranted inclusion as a perceived instance of my "infraction".

Edit #2: The underlying rationale is straightforward. The fact that the recipients of CIA support were Iranian exiles does not, in itself, explain why they were being funded. The relevant point in Woodward's account is not merely that these individuals resided outside Iran, but that they were opponents of the Iranian state and its governing system. The Reagan administration was not funding expatriates as a demographic category; it was funding actors engaged in political opposition. More importantly, I find the distinction being drawn here remarkably artificial. If a foreign intelligence service funds dissident movements seeking to alter, weaken, or replace a country's governing order, that constitutes support for activities directed against that state. This principle would apply regardless of the government in question. Had the CIA funded groups seeking to overthrow Mossadegh, it would have been acting against Mossadegh's Iran. Had it funded groups seeking to overthrow the Shah, it would have been acting against the Pahlavi state. The same logic applies here.

Edit #4: The suggestion that this edit was malicious is absurd. The point of the change was to provide context. Pahlavi predicted the imminent collapse of Iran in 2022. Several years later, the government remains in power. Whether one likes it or not, that prediction was wrong. You may disagree with the wording, and that's a perfectly valid editorial discussion. But disagreement over wording is not evidence of bad faith. The edit was based on subsequent events, not on any attempt to distort what Pahlavi said. If the objection is that Wikipedia should not retrospectively evaluate predictions in its own voice, then say that. But attributing motives to editors because they added context is not a content-based argument.

Having addressed that, I now wish to address the BAFFLING PREPONDERANCE of problematic content on Reza's page, indicative of a concerted campaign to turn it into a promotional paraphernalia, evidenced by multiple egregiously brazen violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Much of this appears to have been zealously safeguarded by HistoryofIran despite repeated concerns regarding its encyclopaedic value. It is also in breach of WP:SOAP.

Consider this currently live on Reza Pahlavi's page:

On 9 March, Pahlavi said that he supported strikes on the IRGC and urged the army to join the people in toppling the government. On 11 March, Pahlavi told Iranians to stay home and continue the daily rooftop chants until he gives the "final call" to overthrow the government. On 14 March, Pahlavi called for underground resistance groups to intensify their fight against the Iranian government, while advising most Iranians to continue to stay home for now. He also noted that he has been in contact with the Trump administration. Also on 15 March, Pahlavi stated that the transition government under his leadership is ready to take control over Iran when the government falls, setting five economic goals for a post-Islamic Republic Iran. He also called for diaspora protests outside Iranian embassies worldwide. Pahlavi asked the US and Israeli leaders not to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran.

Or this:

At the 2026 CPAC conference, Pahlavi outlined his vision for a free Iran, warning the American government not to strike a deal with the Iranian government.

On 3 April, Pahlavi called to expel the Iraqi militias from Iran, criticizing the Iranian government for bringing them.

On 5 April, Pahlavi called on the IRGC to step down before the US targets Iranian infrastructure, saying that they are going to fall regardless, and that they should step down in order to preserve infrastructure.

On 9 April, at the beginning of the 2026 Iran war ceasefire, Pahlavi advised Iranians to exercise patience, noting that the Iranian people will need to deliver the 'final blow' to the Iranian government.

On 13 April, Pahlavi expressed disappointment in European countries for appeasing the Iranian government, which in his view supports terrorism and commits crimes against humanity. On 23 April, he was splashed with red liquid after leaving a press conference in Berlin in which he criticized the ceasefire between Iran and the U.S.

The excerpts above are particularly egregious examples. They amount to little more than a running diary of Pahlavi's pronouncements: what he said on 9 March, what he said on 11 March, what he said on 14 March, what he said on 15 March, what he said on 3 April, what he said on 5 April, what he said on 9 April, and so on. Readers are treated to an exhaustive catalogue of milquetoast exhortations, appeals, predictions, warnings, criticisms, and talking points, many of which appear indistinguishable from the sort of transient political commentary one would expect to find in a news ticker rather than an encyclopedia. This is precisely the sort of content that HistoryofIran repeatedly reinstated and defended. When challenged, rather than engaging with the obvious concerns raised by WP, the response was often to accuse other editors of malice, bias, or ulterior motives. Yet the problem is not difficult to identify: a biographical article is being padded with routine political commentary that lacks any demonstrated enduring significance. Why this is being undertaken is something only HistoryofIran can clarify, but I can hazard a guess: they hold no obeisance to neutrality, and are happy to shove an agenda, efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

The cascading effects of this are difficult to ignore. The article increasingly resembles a self-aggrandising repository of Pahlavi's statements rather than a balanced biographical account of his life and political activities. No one believes Wikipedia is a platform for preserving every speech, prediction, recommendation, criticism, or appeal made by a political figure. Nor is it a vehicle for amplifying a subject's preferred messaging through endless recitation of their public remarks. At some point, one has to ask why such material is being defended so vigorously. If similar day-to-day political commentary were inserted into the biographies of most other political figures, it would almost certainly be trimmed, summarised, or removed as routine news reporting. Here, however, we are expected to preserve an ever-expanding chronicle of Pahlavi's statements, no matter how fleeting their significance, while editors who question the practice are met with accusations of bad faith. An encyclopedia should summarise notable facts about a subject. It should not function as a promotional archive chronicling every opportunity the subject has had to tell the world what he thinks.

I now hereby direct my attention to the remarks of my fellow editors, who have graciously lent a word or two on this protracted conflict.

@QuicoleJR I find this rationale rather revealing. What is being presented as evidence of my alleged inability to edit neutrally consists almost entirely of content disputes in which I challenged article balance, source interpretation, undue weight, or the inclusion of material that reads more like contemporary political reporting than encyclopaedic content. Take the Reza Pahlavi article. I objected to what had effectively become a running chronicle of his daily pronouncements: what he said on one day, what he said two days later, what he said the following week, which government he criticised, which prediction he made, which appeal he issued. Precisely the sort of material WP exists to prevent. Yet somehow, the editor seeking to trim this content is the partisan, while the editor repeatedly restoring and safeguarding it is the neutral party.

A recurring theme throughout this discussion has been the tendency to substitute allegations of motive for substantive engagement. When challenged on content, the response is not to demonstrate why the material belongs in an encyclopedia, but to speculate about the political sympathies of the editor raising the concern. One begins to wonder whether "pro-Iranian POV" has simply become shorthand for "editor who objects to turning opposition figures into vehicles for endless current-events coverage." HistoryofIran has presented nothing other than evidence of disagreement. Disagreement with editors who appear remarkably comfortable with articles that increasingly resemble promotional paraphernalia and news archives. The fact that I have objected to this does not make me incapable of neutrality. I disagree with them, and I have cited the relevant Wikipedia statutes.

If this discussion has demonstrated anything, it is that challenging article balance is apparently treated as a far graver offence than undermining it. Time and again, policy-based objections have been met not with substantive rebuttals, but with accusations of bias, malice, and ulterior motives. One cannot help but wonder whether the true issue here is not that I have failed to edit neutrally, but that I have declined to acquiesce to a narrative others would rather not see questioned.

@CoffeeCrumbs "On an initial glance, it looks like a continuation of the battleground behavior that led this editor to an ANI appearance last week": I believe this is incorrect. The ANI post was the one I made owing to a conflict that has since been resolved. Amicable relations persist with the editor in question. If we believe my mere presence at ANI constitutes indication of truculent behaviour (regardless of whether I was the aggrieved or not), perhaps we should consider HistoryofIran's "history" (ignore the pun), so to speak. Here are their contributions, and of alarming frequency is the nature of them accusing fellow editors of breaching Wikipedia policy. If we accept a solitary post of mine at ANI as prospectively indicate of battleground conduct, then we should take their history of running afoul of fellow editors as evidence of their inability to comport with civility.

@Blue-Sonnet This allegation is equally unpersuasive. Regarding the image caption, the issue was precisely that the original caption was misleading. The ceremony in question did not constitute a swearing-in as Shah of Iran. It was a self-styled ceremony conducted in exile AFTER the abolition of the monarchy following the eradication of the monarchy. Describing it as a "swearing in as Crown Prince" or similar without qualification risks conveying a legitimacy and constitutional status that simply did not exist. He was neither the Crown Prince nor the ceremony taking place a "swearing-in" even if we suspend belief for a wee. The purpose of the edit was to improve accuracy and not tempt readers into a misleading wormhole. HistoryofIran, however, would rather have you believe a nonexistent Crown Prince being sworn in as the heir presumptive of a polity that no longer exists is the way things work in reality.

As for the edit summary, it is difficult to take objections to its tone seriously when it was written in response to repeated accusations that I was engaging in original commentary, removing sourced content for improper reasons, and acting outside consensus. The summary cited actual policies (namely WP, WP, WP, WP, and WP) and explained why I believed the material was inappropriate. One may disagree with that assessment, but characterising a policy-based explanation as somehow extraordinary while ignoring the increasingly personalised accusations that preceded it is a curious double standard.

More broadly, I find it telling that so much attention is being devoted to edit summaries and wording disputes while comparatively little attention is being paid to the underlying content issues. We are discussing an article containing extensive day-to-day political commentary, routine statements, predictions, appeals, and reactions that would be removed from most biographies as ordinary news reporting. Yet the editor objecting to that content is portrayed as the problem, while the editors restoring and defending it are presumed neutral.

At this point, the pattern is difficult to miss. HistoryofIran is deliberately and maliciously framing content disputes as conduct disputes, and disagreement is repeatedly reframed as evidence of bias. It was triggered by the desire to retain content they see fit, catering to a particular plot. Content disputes are repeatedly reframed as conduct disputes, and disagreement is repeatedly reframed as evidence of bias. The actual merits of the edits seem almost secondary.

I find it lamentable how HistoryofIran has resorted to zealously safeguarding these pages in a fashion they see fit. If they claim my edits are "pro-Iranian" in nature (which they aren't, but that's a sparring session for another day), then neither is theirs remotely neutral. Au contraire, it is brazenly pro-Shah, reducing the said pages to a mockery, rendering them a vestibule to peddle pro-Shah messagery, reducing the said pages to a newspaper chronicling virtually every milquetoast, banal snippet they utter as if they are pearls of wisdom. If we agree by their characterisation, then I believe we are agreeing as a whole to the rather troubling precedent that it is perfectly acceptable to breach WP:NEWSPAPER and WP:NPOV.

Lastly, I believe it is rather lamentable a vote on my exclusion from Iran-related pages was initiated without even giving me a chance to respond to their frivolous accusations. How is such a vote not anything but absurd, given it takes into account one party's account as the gospel truth without waiting for the defence to present their case? It is not fair (but flawed) to initiate such proceedings without waiting to hear from the other party, more so in light of the fact that I reside in a timezone that differs vastly from that of fellow editors. I cannot reasonably be expected to respond to such accusations instantaneously. It is also rather dismaying to note how one can construe a mere post on ANI as the gospel truth, considering the fact those who post their concerns (whether unfounded or otherwise) have incentive to distort and frame a case in a fashion they see fit to vilify the other party.

I understand this is rather obscenely long, but I beseech everyone to read my rejoinder giving given the frivolous accusations of HistoryofIran and their overt ownership behaviour. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is ridiculously long and will not be helpful for your case. Please try to condense it, and perhaps copyedit – you have included sentences like "The summary cited actual policies (namely WP, WP, WP, WP, and WP)". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Trust me when I say this: I tried doing that, I really did. However, the nature of the accusations are such that it warranted a comprehensive response. It is very easy for someone to hurl frivolous accusations by curating a clipped, distorted, and contrived summary of events (as HistoryofIran deviously did), so it's an even tedious chore to rebut them. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the fairness of HistoryofIran's accusations, you need to stop talking about the recent Iran war or anything else covered by ARBECR. There's no need for any discussion on the matter, you made edits you should not have made. It does not matter how perfect your edits are, you're still not allowed to make them. Therefore the only thing you can say when it comes to areas covered under ARBECR is something along the lines of 'I continue to believe my edit was good, but accept I cannot make it until I am extended confirmed therefore I will cease all such edits'. If you're already under scrutiny it's a terrible look when you're warned about violating ARBECR & come to ANI and continue to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CT/IRP does not have any wide-reaching extended-confirmed restriction, only the standard set. The inappropriate part (regarding current contentious topics) of the edit brought up on HotChickenParmesan's talk page was only that which pertained to the Iran-Israel proxy war. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, I was referring to HotChickenParmesan's now collapsed lengthy comment above. Part of it was clearly covered by the Arab-Israeli CTOP restriction e.g. "But Israel has never fully halted its Lebanon campaign" and "On 9 April, at the beginning of the 2026 Iran war ceasefire". While participating in necessary dispute resolution is allowed, there is no need for HotChickenParmesan to discuss such stuff. At most if they made some edits others disputed they should say (if it's how they feel) that they stand by such edits but recognise they can no longer make them. What edits others made in area covered by the A-I CTOP are definitely irrelevant to them. If others specifically ask them to explain certain edits it will probably be okay for HotChickenParmesan to explain. But frankly I don't see much point discussing edits HotChickenParmesan should never have made regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. I'd encourage a focus on edits HotChickenParmesan can make when analysing any possible Iran topic ban. As I said later, it's HotChickenParmesan's responsibility to navigate the limitations A-I CTOP ECR places on them. If they cannot work out how to do so, then there's IMO no point imposing an Iran topic ban which they'll probably similarly fail to navigate. Yes I know sometimes a wider topic ban can help with boundaries but we're not exactly talking about borderline cases. Instead stuff which directly mention Hezbollah and Israel. And at the lower end, the 2026 Iran war which per the clarification already mentioned to HotChickenParmesan before their response above, is covered. (If an editor cannot work out that the war being covered means a ceasefire of the war also is, I don't think they can successfully navigate a topic ban.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Just in case there's some confusion since I never mentioned it here, arbcom has already clarified here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 135#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 "For the purposes of arbitration enforcement, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be considered a part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and anything broadly related to it – including the 2026 Iran war – is part of the contentious topic area.". I don't think this leaves any doubt that stuff about the 2026 Iran war ceasefire would also be covered. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Holy WP:WALLOFTEXT, Batman! As aesurias suggests, you'll definitely want to collapse most of this if you want to be seriously heard out; otherwise, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You can be almost certain that an admin will not be reading all of this, but they might take up a much, much shorter response. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oklopfer I genuinely appreciate your input, I really do, but I am at a loss for words. The accusations are heavily curated and clipped to depict me as "pro-Iranian," even though all I did was try to revamp the page per the editorial diktats. The allegations levelled against me are such I had to write this whole wall of text upon waking up, more so in light of the fact a vote was initiated without waiting for my response. My character is under attack, and I am devastated by this malicious act. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a word-a-day calendar? Is today's word "malicious"? I will point you to an edit summary you used yesterday: "...stop accusing other editors of malice and disingenuousness, for you are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What does this have anything to do with the issue at hand? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't know why making personal attacks are a problem or how they're related to the issues at hand, then it ought to be pretty clear why we're discussing editing restrictions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your talk page is instructive. You're given detailed information about relevant policies and guidelines to your edits, with links directly to those policies and guidelines, and then immediately make responses like What is CTOP ECR? You need to be specific. You can't expect me to grasp random acronyms. Not disputing your assessment, but letting you know that when you suggest someone's in violation of something, you need to adduce that provision which directly indicate you didn't read the information given at all and wish to pretend it didn't exist. There and in articles, there's a consistent pattern of you appearing to believe that if you close your eyes hard enough, you can imagine a rule out of existence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. When I stated HistoryofIran is indulging in battleground behaviour, that did not constitute a personal attack. By your erroneous "reasoning", any insinuations of this nature will constitute an ad hominem. I hope you realise how specious that sounds.

"There and in articles, there's a consistent pattern of you appearing to believe that if you close your eyes hard enough, you can imagine a rule out of existence": oh, like the one where I pointed out how Reza Pahlavi's page, the one HistoryofIran is zealously safeguarding, is in breach of Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:SOAP?

"You're given detailed information about relevant policies and guidelines to your edits": the record states nothing of that. In fact, notice how my rejoinder to HistoryofIran's accusations are yet to be addressed, including the itemised breaches I meticulously documented. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Really? There are literally two incredibly detailed contentious topic explanations on your talk page, which you respond to by feigning unawareness of their existence. And there are plenty of other personal attacks above. I'm sorry, but I'm increasingly of the belief that you're just trolling rather than merely misguided. I now strongly support a topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed, and a logged warning noting that continued WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:DISRUPTIVE editing may lead to a wider editing sanction. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I point out that it's not going to be obvious to a new editor that "CTOP ECR" refers to Wikipedia:Contentious topics and extended confirmed restriction? Nothing in the two editnotices uses those acronyms. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but from the edit they made before, it was quite clear that the context of what was being discussed was understood. They didn't just pretend they didn't know what "CTOP" was, but the entire concept of a contentious topic, that was literally described about four inches away. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In any case, despite saying [45] "prerogative I apparently lack to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If that's something policy dictates I cease partaking in until editorial policy endows me with the said privilege, I will demur." HotChickenParmesan later made this edit [46] in clear violation of the A-I CTOP. This is basically the same as both example they wanted to discuss ("Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which prompted retaliatory strikes by Iran") which I'd said they couldn't and they accepted they couldn't, and the example I had earlier given them as something they cannot do [47]. But also even if my explanations have been terrible, HotChickenParmesan has demonstraed no ability and/or willingness to try to understand perhaps by asking others before they continue to violate. IMO at a minimum an admin should impose a block or logged warning under CTOP so they get the warning. There's not much point discussing a topic ban if they're already not even able to abide by the effective topic ban of ARB ECR for A-I, our only option may be to just indefinitely block them from the whole site. Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention, lets remember while I have repeatedly emphasised to them that it applies to the 2026 Iran war broadly construed, and especially Hezbollah vs Israel, there shouldn't really be confusion here anyway. We're specifically talking about Hezbollah a largely Arab force vs Israel, regardless of what Iran might have also done, so it should be obvious it's part of the Arab-Israeli conflict even from a plain reading of the restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The last I checked, the topic of Iranian frozen assets stems from a dispute (the 1979 hostage crisis) largely independent of the Arab-Palestinian conflict. I am not sure why you keep conflating the two, when it is evident that the distinction is palpably clear. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You made an edit about Hezbollah Israel attacking Israel Hezbollah, that's clearly part of the conflict. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC) 03:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Jesus, this clownery is so pronounced I couldn't even bother responding to this. If refraining from touching pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict somehow implies I am not even allowed to mention the words "Israel" or "Hezbollah" on pages unrelated to that topic, then I am certain you are just clowning around. Kudos though, this is one of the most hilarious statements I have come across. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, if you actually read any of the information given to you or any of the pages outlining the rules, you would understand that this is precisely incorrect. With a few very specific exemptions, you cannot mention anything related to the Arab-Israel conflict on the article for gravy, clouds, the 1962 World Series, Niels Bohr, the Louvre, John Steinbeck, or any other page, whether that page is directly related to the topic or not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Feigned ignorance? You need to pipe it down. Accusing me of hurling personal attacks when all I have done is outline HistoryofIran's battleground conduct doesn't count as one. I am not certain whether you are deliberately being obtuse, but it is certain that you are resorting to using obscure phrases and other terminology, which another user kindly pointed out, to obscure the matter and depict me as someone "feigning ignorance".

Do you want an actual example of a personal attack? Go through your remark again.

And, no, just because I happened to edit pages related to the Israel-Arab conflict doesn't imply I am somehow abundantly familiar with acronyms you made up.

"Nothing in the two editnotices uses those acronyms": lest you forget. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support topic ban from post-1978 Iranian politics per my report and the comments of the three other users in favour of the topic ban. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try, kiddo, but your vote doesn't count. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. The mods typically count the vote of the person who started it (and, for that matter, would likely count your vote as well). In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Then I am afraid such a mechanism is fatuous. Imagine suing someone, and the judge places you in the jury to adjudicate the merits of the same suit you brought against the defendant.

If such a "vote" includes the plaintiff's preferences themselves, then I am afraid to admit, and I say this with characteristic restraint, that it is a botched procedure that clearly constitutes a mistrial. By that same yardstick, I would even argue my vote shouldn't count. Why should it? Of course, the plaintiff would vote for the defendant's culpability, whereas the defendant would vote against. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, it's a private website with specific policies. It's entirely possible for the OP to have changed their mind during the discussion (I know I have).

The bottom line is that this is how Wikipedia works, whether you agree with it or not. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

They were the one who started this thread, so it counts! GarethBaloney (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you sue someone in a court of law and then beseech the magistrate presiding over the trial to place you in the jury? HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You have said all you need to say at this point and I would advise you to stop with the constant replies, which are now well past WP:BLUDGEONING. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not being obtuse, but the fact that the vast majority of those who voted for the proposition have admitted they haven't even read my rejoinder in the slightest (coupled with the fact that OP wrote an account that curiously omits the diffs), makes it rather obscenely difficult to believe this is fair. Has anyone bothered to go through the current live version of Reza Pahlavi's page, the same version HistoryofIran keeps defending? Has any editor worth their salt admitted to the fact that the page is a scathing exemplar in how not to write a Wikipedia page? Wikipedia:SOAP and Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER are two of the prime policies it breaks (and which HistoryofIran keeps indulging in), but I don't see that being discussed here. Instead, a twisted, contrived account of my contributions was furnished as proof of my "pro-Iranian" bent, even though I hold no such distinction and simply wanted an objective, factual account of circumstances. This is also amusing in light of the fact that HistoryofIran has admitted to monarchist tendencies, as evidenced by their edits and history, which everyone seems to be ignoring lately.

I have already stated I shall steer clear of Reza Pahlavi's page until I have amassed sufficient contribution history, but I sincerely hope anyone conducting a vote, which, by the way, began even before I could write my response, goes through my rejoinder. I am quite certain most haven't (they admit to such too). HotChickenParmesan (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss editor behavior, not article content. The disposition of the articles you and HistoryofIran have edited are not the point of contention in this discussion for most of the participants. Many editors have been able to follow dispute resolution processes to figure out what should and shouldn't be included on an article despite their personal biases, without assuming bad faith of others. The purpose of this thread should be to come to a mutual understanding and prevent heated disagreements like this from happening in the future; a lot of editors are of the opinion now that the best way to prevent further disruption would be a topic ban or block. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support site ban although I'm fine if an admin simply indefinitely blocks them and we close this. I see no point messing around with topic bans when the editor cannot even obey the Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP restriction in such a simple case, and has shown no willingness to try to learn where they are going wrong. There's no way they can obey an Iran topic ban of any sort either. Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that you are so keen on stretching the extent of a topic-wide embargo is remarkably obtuse. I hope you have noticed that. If you haven't, then I wonder what credentials you have to contribute to this discussion. You accused me of violating the Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban. Your proof? The fact that I mentioned "Israel" and "Hezbollah" on a page unrelated to that topic.

  More critically, we need to examine whether you have the appropriate credentials to even partake in this discussion, given the hilarious lengths to which you have jumped to contrive a case against me. You do not come in good faith, and that's evident. HotChickenParmesan (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  That string of personal attacks, concluding with the one immediately above, results in a 31 hour block. This does not preclude further action, and further problems with personal attacks or poor behavior, particularly in contentious topics, could result in an indefinite block. The only reason this initial block is not indefinite is that almost all the edits in question occurred before the editor was aware of CTOPS. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The credentials Nil Einne has are the only ones needed: being an editor in good standing, whose voice will have weight because of their 20 years of highly productive work on this project. And yes, except for a few very specific exemptions, just mentioning anything related to the Arab/Palestinian conflict, anywhere on Wikipedia, is forbidden for editors without extended-confirmed access. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  In the short term, they need a temporary block for the long list of personal attacks and condescending behaviour toward multiple editors in this discussion (including in the reply directly above)

  • HistoryofIran [is] forcibly shoving a contorted, contrive narrative down Wikipedia
  • they [HistoryofIran] hold no obeisance to neutrality, and are happy to shove an agenda
  • HistoryofIran is deliberately and maliciously framing content disputes as conduct disputes
  • [HistoryofIran is] reducing the said pages to a mockery, rendering them a vestibule to peddle pro-Shah messagery, reducing the said pages to a newspaper chronicling virtually every milquetoast, banal snippet they utter as if they are pearls of wisdom
  • It is very easy for someone to hurl frivolous accusations by curating a clipped, distorted, and contrived summary of events (as HistoryofIran deviously did)
  • My character is under attack, and I am devastated by this malicious act. (emphasis is mine)
  • Jesus, this clownery is so pronounced I couldn't even bother responding to this...I am certain you are just clowning around. Kudos though, this is one of the most hilarious statements I have come across.
  • Feigned ignorance? You need to pipe it down.
  • I am not certain whether you are deliberately being obtuse
  • ...nice try, kiddo, but your vote doesn't count.
  • The fact that you are so keen on stretching the extent of a topic-wide embargo is remarkably obtuse. I hope you have noticed that. If you haven't, then I wonder what credentials you have to contribute to this discussion. (emphasis is mine)
  • You do not come in good faith, and that's evident

  aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, @Rsjaffe read my mind aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can we bring this back to the content issues for a moment? While there are clear conduct concerns, some of the underlying content disputes seem unresolved. Looking at a number of the diffs, HotChickenParmesan appears to be raising some legitimate questions regarding undue weight, editorial tone, and whether certain sections may have become overly news-driven. Tasasiki (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  ANI isn't the place to discuss content, only conduct. You can discuss HCP's concerns on the talk pages of the relevant articles if you want. It only becomes an issue for ANI if you can show that an individual editor is POV pushing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  No?... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Could I ask how you found this conversation? Your last edits are from 2 months ago, when you were edit warring at (wow!) Reza Pahlavi and other Iran-related pages, resulting in this ANI report against you, which in turn produced some fascinatingly familiar statements from you, including "We shouldn’t under any circumstances think that the monarchists speak for all Iranians — they certainly do not". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I decided to try one more time on their talk page to get them to drop the incivility. Hopefully they're receptive. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  For my part, I'll withdraw from this. HotChickenParmesan clearly either isn't understanding or accepting my explanations, and I think I've said enough about my concerns over their editing here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sam Wood Rp serial edit warring and gaming

The aforementioned user has consistently edit warred on Superpower.

In April, an rfc on the talk page concluded with editors be allowed to add China as a superpower along with the United States.

since then, @Sam Wood RP: has consistently tried to introduce concepts like “military superpower” to try and skirt around the rfc and has engaged in edit warring with me and other users.

On June 18 @McSly: reverted their edit as it was unsourced. Sam Wood RP then reverted McSly for which I then stepped in and reverted Sam Wood. On June 19 there was no activity from Sam Wood on the page but June 20 re-adds their June 18th edit with citations to which I reverted as their edits are still not supported by the discussions on the talk page. Today they then revert again. To me, the user seems to be editing in a way to avoid violating the 3RR and is gaming the system.

When I went to warn the user on the talk page, I noticed that McSly has already warned them on there in May for edit warring on the same page.

This user was previously made aware of edit warring and appears to be edit warring in a way that games the system by dancing around the 24 hour window. PaulRKil (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of sources.

Besides I did not introduce concepts like "military superpower" it is an existing concept in the field of international relations I'm starting to doubt that you have read yet a single book on the topic.

Additionally, there is no consensus in the field of international relations regarding China's status as a superpower.

Regardless, according to definition given by William T.R. Fox and Nicholas Spykman (the scholars who actually came up with the term "Superpower") a superpower must posses the ability to wage war anywhere in the world, I've provided quotes and sources on the talk page of the Superpower page.

To me personally this looks like you are biased. Sam Wood Rp (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring resumed

It seems that Sam Wood Rp has resumed edit warring after their block expired: [48][49][50] - MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Give me a rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bring_me_a_rock Sam Wood Rp (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you actually think that essay refers to a situation analogous to your situation, it's just another bit of evidence that you're unsuited to this project. You're just edit-warring, clearly against consensus, and doing the exact same nonsense you were doing that got you blocked. There are generally two choices a Wikipedia editor can make when it comes to their interactions on Wikipedia:

• Work constructively with the community and respect consensus
• Fuck off

The Wikipedia community is an open-minded one, and would be more than happy to help you out with whatever option you prefer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm absolutely in favor of a page block for Sam Wood Rp, if not a sensible topic ban (the concept of a superpower? geopolitics?). While it's not yet my first choice as I'd prefer to see this editor reform their ways, I'm certainly not strongly against a stiffer sanction than either. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I see how thoroughly you are following the wikipedia rules and how respectful you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FUCKOFF is instructive. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That essay is about experienced editors not explaining policies properly to new editors, but that essay doesn't replace or supercede the consensus policy. You're reinstating edits without an agreed consensus on the article Talk page, after you've previously been told about consensus - the edit warring notices you've had explain that you should ...use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved.

Your first edit after being unblocked [51] was to the same article you were blocked for edit warring over, without without returning to the Talk page to gain consensus.

As soon as you were reverted, that was a massive red flag that you were falling into the same bad habits as before and needed to step back.

You made an edit, it was reverted, you reverted that, then were reverted and you've reverted it back. Do you see a pattern? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Clearly since at least 3 people are actively disputing this there is no consensus. Who decides that there is a consensus? Why does Wikipedia decide to publish editor's opinion specifically on the Superpower article? ~2026-30838-14 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The solution here is exceptionally simple - you discuss it on the article talk page, or at WP:DR if necessary. You don't edit war. Disputing a consensus is perfectly fine, and indeed healthy. Edit warring is not. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If you want to understand the policy and how consensus is usually formed, you can find out more at Wikipedia:Consensus and the "See also" pages at the bottom. This current discussion is about edit warring/reversions whilst the process was still ongoing. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 20:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked him from the Superpower page: he can still try to get consensus on talk. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Sam Wood Rp continued disruptive editing, bad faith summaries, and edit warring after first warning.

This user has continued to engage in disruptive behavior on the Superpower page regarding the inclusion of China as a superpower. Once they were given a block regarding edit warring, they then proceeded to participate in the same behavior.

Additionally, the user has resorted to bad faith editing summaries. When I wrote "Nobody has agreed to making these types of changes. Please stop." they reverted that change and copypasted my summary.

It is clear to me that this user is not interested in good faith discussions on how to edit the article and as myself and other users have pushed back against them in the talk page, they are increasingly becoming combative. PaulRKil (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

PaulRKil FYI since there's an open report, I've merged your duplicate here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I did not see this, so thank you. PaulRKil (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User Javext - Talk:Portuguese conquest of Ceuta

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

This user has accused me twice of vandalism and editing in bad faith, and has generally been needlessly aggressive in their language and approach.

I apologise for raising this incident which I'd normally ignore, since they're a relatively new editor with limited experience, but the individual specifically stated they didn't care if they were reported. I think this sort of attitude needs to be addressed early. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I head to dig through the history a bit since there aren't any diffs in your report - is it this discussion and this comment? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand that the wikipedia policy is to assume good faith, but when it comes to cases like this, it’s genuinely impossible to assume that. Your recent edits on that article were probably the most disruptive and unconstructive edits I have ever seen under the banner of good faith and trying to improve the page. You disregarded other editor’s opinion and tried forcibly to assert your edits by submitting it to the Military History Group. When it comes to such big edits like these, you should first resort to explaining them in the talk page and reach a consensus with the users, which you didn’t. You acted authoritarian, like your susperior to everyone else.

With a behaviour like this, I cannot assume that you were acting under good faith and I think that you have other motives since there are hundreds if not thousands of other less relevant subjects, with more information on the page and you don’t care about those. On a side note I also must mention that you went to a user’s page who disagreed with you, namely Wareno, and threatened him stating that his block ban was recently removed. What were you trying to imply? Why do you have to act so authoritarian, just because others rightly criticize your disruptive edits? No one can go against you? Javext (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like this is a content dispute that's gotten a little out of hand. Everyone involved needs to take a few steps back, then a deep breath before doing anything further. I've always said that ANI should be a last resort in disputes, for use when other, less public forms of dispute resolution have failed (excepting urgent & severe cars OFC).

• @Robinvp11, shouting [52] isn't a good way to get other editors to see and understand your point of view. Similarly, I think this ANI was a little premature & other dispute resolution methods may have been more suitable. I also feel that this [53] was rather unnecessary; they don't need reminding of a previous block for edit warring if they're not doing anything that would necessitate further sanctions. Every blocked editor deserves a fresh start once their block has ended.
• @Javext, vandalism has a very specific meaning at Wikipedia; if someone's edits aren't clear vandalism then it can be considered to be a personal attack. Please don't do that again, your comments weren't acceptable no matter how strongly you feel. The default position at Wikipedia is to assume good faith but you've gone straight on the attack - this is a community project and you absolutely cannot approach disputes in such an aggressive manner, especially if it's only over the good-faith removal of text in an article. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold and fix problems proactively - it's almost impossible for one person to break a Wikipedia article, everything is in the edit history so it's pretty easy to fix things if needs be.

Honestly, I see editors on that Talk page who care a lot about the article and the subject it covers - that's a great place to start from. I'm really hoping that you've all just had a bit of a hiccup on the way after running at the subject full-tilt, because you care so much.

Please remember one thing, no matter what happens next: You both want the article to be at its best, but have differing views on how to achieve that. That's a strength that you can both use, if you are smart about it. It's not a bad thing at all.

Working together from opposite sides can often be the best way to make sure things don't go too far in one direction. But in order to do that, you both need to allow the other editor some slack to work with.

Go back to the Talk page and look over the changes, section by section. Search for reasons to accept the other person's view, before thinking about reasons to reject it. If there are no good reasons to accept a proposal, at least you've given it an honest try. Explain what you've thought about and why you made your decision, remember that other editors may be coming into the discussion cold so be clear and concise when you write - I find it helpful to imagine that my boss will read it later, that way I'll never fly off the handle!

Treat this as a new start - you've both just met and are talking about the article for the first time. It might help to ignore the previous discussion, to just pretend it didn't happen and start afresh. That's up to you both.

If you can both talk to each other calmly and clearly, you'll reach a true consensus and create an article to be proud of. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, since I missed this earlier (apologies) - You acted authoritarian, like your susperior to everyone else. With a behaviour like this, I cannot assume that you were acting under good faith and I think that you have other motives is also unacceptable.

Please never question another editor's motives like that unless you have very clear reason and solid justification to do so. If you carry on like this, administrators may feel the need to take action and I'm sure that's the last thing you want to happen. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts making personal attacks and casting aspersions

I recently tagged the filmography section of a BLP that had zero citations as unsourced. After which, Rusted AutoParts removed the tag without resolving the issue, and falsely claimed that "they are sourced in the career section right above". I then restored the template, and left a level 1 warning on their talk page for removing the template without resolving it, and in my own edit summary said "P.S. it's pretty dumb to lie in edit summaries..." since it was very obvious that every entry was not sourced in the section above. They removed the warning on their talk page, labeling it as "condescension", and then made a personal attack in their next edit summary on the article calling me "the lazy editor wishing only to complain" (while also adding new sources not previously included in the article). At which point, I left another message on their talk page telling them not to make personal attacks against other editors. Instead of a simple apology, they claimed I was acting in bad faith. The conversation only devolved from there, with them continuing to be uncivil, claim I acted in bad faith, cast aspersions, and refuse to apologize or even strike-through their attacks against me. This continued, including them searching my talk page archive to find something to attack me with again, at which point I asked for an apology, as none of my edits were in bad faith or failed WP:NPA. Instead of apologizing for the personal attacks and aspersions, they accused me of hounding them and said they do not owe me an apology. Since they seem to not care about following NPA or WP:ASPERSIONS (or even just simply apologizing for said attacks), I feel at this point there needs to be someone else involved, even if only as a third opinion/mediator. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So..I don't know how to approach this. I've explained to the editor I felt bad faith was pointed my way when they inferred I was a liar. I considered it needless, and insulting because it wasn't true. Whether my initial edit removing the tag was right is not in dispute. It wasn't correct. My assuming that the Career section had sources was immaterial to the fact the filmography section was unsourced. It wasn't me "lying", So I took exception to that. Being called a liar is rather accusatory and inflammatory. I felt that since bad faith was being pointed my way, I elected to be a little childish when adding sources to the tables, and made the lazy remark in my summary. It was to make a point about needless bad faith. I told the editor as much repeatedly on my talk page when they clearly took exception. I also told the editor repeatedly we can both admit fault and move on, or it could be dropped. I asked the editor multiple times to leave me alone, and they wouldn't, which is why I accused them of hounding me because they felt owed an apology when they wouldn't recognize why I took issue with them in the first place. I brought their past block up as their past block involved not dropping the stick in that given situation. They wouldn't drop the stick here when I asked them to leave me alone. I do not see why this merits a noticeboard report. Rusted AutoParts 22:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

So... You made a false statement (all entries were not sourced in the section above), to which I commented that "it's pretty dumb to lie". And you felt that deserved multiple personal attacks and aspersions without any remorse or apology? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"How did I act in bad faith"? you ask, while you are still trying to insist on me being a liar. Calling someone a liar off the rip was needless, I don't know why you don't see that. Well, I suppose you did above when you noted you said "it's dumb to lie", but apparently you aren't willing to grasp why I would resent this. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

1. not all falsehoods are lies. people make mistakes. if someone is incorrect over a trivial matter like this, it's probably just a mistake. not a lie.
2. both of you: knock it off. you've both been on this website long enough to know better. Morwen (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

   I’ve been more than happy to just drop this. Rusted AutoParts 00:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Fine, they didn't lie when they falsely stated the entries were sourced above (even though I had added that tag because I had already checked that they were not all sourced above). But am I wrong to expect just a simple apology after multiple unwarranted personal attacks? Is that just accepted behavior around here now? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   We're all expected to act like adults, which means administrators can't force editors to apologise to each other - but if it's desperately needed then would you also apologise for calling them a liar? That was also unwarranted.

   Alternatively, you can both call it even and just move on. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I just did, but I guess everyone here is just lazy, and that's ok... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I don't see any apology from you. I see a very grudging acknowledgement that people can be mistaken, that's all. Am I missing something? Morwen (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Nope, I agreed that they didn't lie. It's more of an apology than I got for the overtly personal attacks against me. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Sorry, did you mean that I'm lazy? I'm not sure what you mean by that. This wasn't a clear apology, it was a grudging admission that you were wrong. If you've apologised elsewhere then I've not been able to find it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm done... I understand that it's ok to make spiteful personal attacks against another editor when you're called out on your own false statements, and I apologize for expecting the rules to be enforced. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   There's obviously still some resentment and it may be best if you take some time away from each other to cool down - this doesn't seem like a matter for ANI and I'm sure the last thing we all want is for it to become one.

   Don't reply to this comment, just leave Wikipedia for a few hours and go and do something that you enjoy. Watch TV, go for a walk, read a book, play a game, just do something to take your mind off this situation. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well, yeah... when I'm called "lazy" for taking the time to check the sources and adding a template after finding that not everything was supported by the available sources (let alone a single citation in that section), and "acting in bad faith" when I suggest that they shouldn't liemake obviously false statements in their edit summaries after they claimed that everything is supported without putting in the same amount of work as I had (checking the sources themselves), I tend to resent being told that I'm the one that needs to apologize. Now I know that casting aspersions is OK, and the one that was attacked will need to apologize. I'm not going to take a break, and I think it's rude to suggest that, but obviously there is no reason for me to continue this discussion if no one cares about NPA. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Exactly how much time did it take you to glance through that section and notice the absence of little blue clicky numbers? I didn't turn on my timer, but I estimate that it took me about three seconds.

   When you find that some things are sourced elsewhere in an article (about which see Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed – this is the page that details the WP:FA standards) and other things are not, it's usually more helpful to add individual {{citation needed}} tags than to add a whole-article or whole-section tag. Most editors find that it's easier to use the visual editor when editing tables. Open the article in the visual editor, then double-click to get into the cell that needs a citation. Go to Insert > Template in the toolbar and search for the template you want. After you've got one on the page, it's easy to copy/paste them into multiple locations.

   You could even re-use a few refs to cite the rest of the contents while you're there. Just put your cursor in the correct location and click the "Cite" button. The list will appear under "Re-use". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Thank you, but I don't use visual editor or any scripts, I find them too confusing. I think I understand how to use {{citation needed}} well enough, but apparently I'm just a lazy retard. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I don't know if this will help or just make things worse, but do you not see the unfortunate irony when you complain you didn't receive an apology and someone else points out you never apologised for calling someone a liar and you then incorrectly claim state you did apologise when no one else reading it sees it as an apology? No one has called you a liar because you incorrectly claimed stated you apologised and nor should they have. And if given all that has gone down and the perhaps justified unhappiness you have about it all, you couldn't and still aren't willing to apologise when you did do something wrong, maybe you can understand why the other editor also may not be willing to apologise and why us forcing either of you to apologise when neither of you seem willing to, is not productive? Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) 01:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that I didn't violate NPA, I merely suggested that "lying is pretty dumb" after they blindly removed the template and claimed that everything was sourced without even bothering to check if that was true. If they had initially asked me to apologize for calling their overtly false statement a "lie", I would have. Instead, they called me a "lazy editor wishing only to complain" and "acting in bad faith". Then, they accused me of WP:HOUNDing them just for asking for an apology for their PAs within that same thread, I never followed them to other pages or did anything to restrict or dull their experience here (that I know of, we have never even interacted with each other before this). Then, once here, I am told that I am the one that needs to apologize. For what? If you don't want people to suggest you not lie in your edit summaries, then maybe you shouldn't make obviously false claims in your edit summaries. For what it's worth, I apologize for calling their obviously false statement a "lie", I recognize that I could have said it differently and probably would have if I had checked their experience level before warning them. Honestly, I expected no response (99% of my warning templates go un-answered), or at least a civil conversation. When their immediate response was to start insulting me without evidence, I tried to correct their understanding of NPA and ASPERSIONS, and they only continued with the insults. In the end, I simply asked for an apology, and they outright refused. Had I known this would turn into a boomerang at AN/I because I called a lie a lie, I would have just let the whole thing go. I should have just let them remove the template and said nothing. User:Rusted AutoParts, I'm sorry for suggesting you not "lie" in your future edit summaries, I intended for it to be a learning experience for what I assumed was a new editor, not an insult. Everyone else, I'm sorry I filed this report, I keep forgetting I'm supposed to stay in my corner and not interact with other editors or have an opinion, it never turns out well for me. And now it's bed-time, thank you all for reminding me how wrong I am about everything here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well if a lie is a lie and people shouldn't make obvious false statements if they don't want people to imply they're lying, maybe you shouldn't make obvious false statements at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   BTW, you seem to be missing what's an even more important point. You're acting like it's very obvious that not everything was sourced in the above section. But it's simply not. I had originally assumed given how strong you were about this that the were basically no sources in the above section. But there were a bunch. Is everything in the latter section sourced in the previous section? I have no idea, I'm not going to investigate but will take your word for it if since you're saying they aren't. But it's not nearly as obvious as you've stated that some of the information is not sourced above. So what this most likely is even just from quickly considering it, is at best careless wording. An editor sees a bunch of the stuff is sourced above, and without checking properly says something which could be taken to mean in context that it's all sourced above. When all they really know is a bunch of it is sourced & they didn't check to make sure all of it was. What they should have said is something like 'at least some of it is sourced in the career section right above' or maybe 'at least some of it, maybe all, is sourced in the career section right above'. Instead what they said is 'they are sourced in the career section right above the filmography'. This statement is ambiguous. Given the context it could read to mean everything is sourced in the section above which is how you seem to have read it. Since they probably did not look that carefully this wasn't ideal since the statement could have been read as stronger than it should have been based on the evidence they had. But it doesn't even clearly say all of it is sourced, it's ambiguous whether the editor is saying all of it is sourced (which I guess is untrue) and some of it is sourced (which is true). So that's very very far from a lie. And I'll be clear, while I do not believe anyone should call you a liar, from my PoV, it's much more obvious and easy to see that you statement that you apologised was untrue until your 02:53 comment. So if you still feel it's justified to call them a liar over it, then you should accept people are going to call you a liar for making a statement which seems more obviously untrue and incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Reading more carefully, while you haven't clarified despite multiple people calling you out for not apologising, what you said "I just did". It's ambiguous whether this is a reply to the question "would you also apologise for calling them a liar?". Or a reply to "Alternatively, you can both call it even and just move on.". Perhaps you'd intended the "I just did" to mean you called it even and moved on rather than to say you apologised. This doesn't help you much though since it's clear you had not called it even and moved on either. Even accepting you might have changed your mind after others replied, the very statement where you said "I just did" demonstrates you had not called it even and moved on. Either way, I stick by my original comment to me. Whatever "I just did" was a reply to, it's a more obvious untrue/false/whatever you want to call it statement than the edit summary you so contest. Nil Einne (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   To clarify, since y'all are going to continue harping on this and continue to make me the bad guy for some fucking reason, the "I just did" was in response to "let it go". If you can read, Morwen said "knock it off", I stated that "fine, they didn't lie...", Blue sonnet said "move on", I said "I just did", and then Morwan responded "I don't see an apology from you", and I responded "Nope, I agreed that they didn't lie". I next said "I'm done...", but others wanted to continue bitching about me calling a lie a lie. Never once do I see a single person asking Rusted to apologize, or even a single comment directed towards them about NPA or ASPERSIONS, just bitching that I didn't apologize. And just because you're too lazy to investigate if everything was sourced or not does not mean I was. I had investigated it and found that not everything was sourced above, so I knew their statement was false and they had not bothered to investigate before blindly removing the tag. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   What obviously false statements have I made here at ANI? - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I thought your “I just did” was response to the question you were asked. So, evidently, did BlueSonnet. Morwen (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Well, obviously it does not matter what I say at this point, everyone has already made up their mind that I was in the wrong for calling a lie a lie. Moreso, I am now being accused of lying myself here at ANI. I give up... I was the bad guy here, Rusted did nothing wrong, casting aspersions is perfectly fine, ANI is full of lazy admins, and I should just let other editors do whatever they want, fuck the rules. Thanks for nothing, ANI, I'm going back to bed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   The obvious false statement was that you had neither apologised nor "call[ed] it even and just move on" which your 'I just did' comment can reasonably be interpreted to mean.

   And I don't see where anyone has said Rusted did nothing wrong. All that has been said it's not something for ANI since sanctions are preventative not punitive, we never force apologies and editors need to take great care when they say something is a lie. Also that your case demonstrates both why we never force apologies and why it's imperative editors take great about calling something a lie. It's understandable you did not want to apologise and for that reason it was a terrible idea for us to force you to and so we never did.

   Your 'lie' statement supposes that the editor knew something they most likely did not know and also that your interpretation of their statement was correct. Whether they were lazy or whatever else, them not knowing that some of the information was unsourced doesn't make what they said a 'lie'. It makes it at worst a careless mistake. But also as I've pointed out, reading the edit summary carefully it doesn't even clearly say all the information is sourced above. It's ambiguous whether they mean it's all sourced (which is apparently untrue) or only some (which is true).

   I'll leave one final point. I think this amply demonstrates that what is obvious to one editor is not always obvious to another. How one editor reads something is not always going to be the same as how another editor reads it. You feel that your lie comment does not imply that the editor is a liar, several of us including the editor it was directed at feel it does.

   Several of us read your comment as saying you had apologised. You didn't mean it like that, but it's how we read it. You didn't sufficiently clarify when people questioned you on it, it seems you didn't understand the point being made. I read what you'd said more carefully and looking at the context recognised it was more ambiguous than I had originally read it and mentioned this. (Although as I said, I'm not convinced it makes a big difference in the end since to my mind, even if you meant it as a reply to the move on thing, it was still clearly untrue even at the time the statement.)

   I also read what Rusted had said more carefully and realised their statement was more ambiguous than you read it too. For many people implying that they lie is incredibly offensive since it means they intentionally said something they knew was untrue, rather than just worded something so poorly it was misunderstood or they didn't know something which perhaps they should have checked before they made their statement. While you may have felt your statement did not imply the editor was a liar, since the editor and plenty of us feel it does, this is an area you need to reform. Just like Rusted needs to ensure they do not make personal attacks no matter what personal attacks or perceived personal attacks they receive.

   For all these reasons, implying or calling some a liar is something that should be done very sparingly and only in very clear cut cases which is self-evidently not the case here. This is not to say you can never say it, recently an editor kept saying they hadn't copied something from the website when they clearly did. It's fine to say they were lying in that instance. But such cases are rare.

   Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I know I said the above will be my last but one final point just occurred to me. I've already said AFAICT, no one has said Rusted did nothing wrong. I'll go further than that. While I don't think it's helpful generally to compare fault, in this case I will say from my quick look on the whole Rusted did behave significantly poorer than you in the original mess. I can't speak for anything else but I wouldn't be surprised if anyone looking at it will feel the same.

   If you think the reactions here where you've come under more discussion indicate anything else, IMO you're very likely wrong. The reason for all this is not because editors think you are more at fault than Rusted but because of the differing ways you've behaved here at ANI. As I said, sanctions are preventative not punitive. That also applies in a broad sense as to how we deal with editors even without sanctions.

   Once it reached ANI, Rusted seem to quickly acknowledge their fault even if they didn't immediately apologise. (And to my read, when they did apologise it come across as much more genuine.) They seem to be trying to learn how they went wrong and how to do better and do seem to be at least partly understanding things better. This gives us some confidence that perhaps they will improve and there won't be a repeat. Of course if they keep ending up back here for cause, we'll learn our confidence is misplaced, but we will wait for that, as we always do.

   By comparison to my read, your replies have barely acknowledged any fault and don't really demonstrate much understanding of why editors feel your behaviour here was also problematic. The fact it was less problematic than Rusted doesn't change that it is behaviour that should change. While I do think you will be more careful in using the word 'lie' etc in the future, I'm not sure you really appreciate why you need to be. Which is is very unfortunate since IMO it means there will often be similar problems in other areas. So definitely I, and I think others, are more concerned about whether you will improve & are trying to get it through to you, unsuccessful as it seems to be, that you do need to. And there's also simply more to talk with you about since you were actively disagreeing with us whereas Rusted seemed to mostly accepted what others said to them.

   Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I genuinely do not know what else is there to be done here. It's your choice as to if you accept my apology below or not, but I have offered one, I am not sure why you are still so upset about. It was not whether you want to help when seeing an erroneous edit, the problem was your insinuation I was lying about what I said. What I said was false, yes, but it was not at all based off me wishing to lie to you or be deceitful. It was a flippant assumption on my part that since the Career section of the article had (the majority) of the credits sourced. we didn't need to do so for the tables, which is incorrect because the tables are their own section. When you wish to resolve a potential content dispute, you shouldn't be making flippant remarks in your edit summaries figuring the person you're addressing is the worst case scenario before you discuss it more indepth. So I came away bothered by your insinuation, so I decided to be pettily pointed when providing the sources into the tables. The way you were upset about being called lazy (which I'll reiterate I don't actually think you are) is how I felt about being called a liar, I'm not sure why I'm not being afforded that understanding from you, you decided my actions were to be intentionally untruthful, and that really sucked.

   I just really don't know what else can be said here, I'm not sure why you're still upset, and I certainly don't see why you referring to yourself as a "retard" was at all necessary, absolutely no one here thinks that of you. But this feels like it's looped to my very first reply on my talk page when I said we can either both admit we could have gone about this better and move on, or just move on without doing that and call it a day. Rusted AutoParts 14:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   You and I are fine, Rusted, we had both very clearly apologized and moved on. My problem is with the editors above that, literally the first thing anyone else said about the subject was "knock it off". Or, after I said I was "done" with the situation, continued to bitch about me being resentful, tell me to "not reply and take a break", teach me how to use citation tags like I'm a fucking noob, or say that I was the one that needed to apologize. Or, after I did apologize and went to bed, Nil wrote a whole fucking book about how I had somehow lied myself because they were too stupid to figure out how a conversation works, that they were too lazy to put in the work that I had, and going into detail continuing to demand that I apologize 6 fucking hours after I had not only apologized here, but also on your page which you just linked, and the two of us had obviously moved on. I'm just tired of the high-and-mighty editors around here anymore, "good for me, but not for thee", "do as I say, not as I do", bullshit attitudes. If Nil hadn't decided to write those multiple lengthy complaints and false accusations about me, this would all have been over last night, this should have all been over last night, but someone just had to continue dragging my sorry ass through the mud in Steven King level detail to make sure I felt like a piece of shit for even reporting this. And then they wonder why we have a problem retaining new editors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In the interests of putting this situation to bed, I apologize for the lazy remark. As I said, it was meant to be a pointed remark about bad faith. I had no genuine belief that you are a lazy editor. I just didn't appreciate the liar insinuation. It to me suggested that I was purposefully fibbing about something when it was just me figuring we didn't need sources in the tables because (the majority) of the credits were sourced in the above section (again, this was wrong to figure). This was the outcome I was hoping for when this issue first kicked off, for there to be a reflection of both of us operating in needless bad faith and moving forward from it. I just wasn't feeling that you understood why I was insulted by the liar remark, so that's why I wasn't interested in apologizing. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been a little confused about the way you've been talking about "bad faith" in this whole discussion, and I think I've put finger on it now - do you think "operating in bad faith" means, "not assuming good faith"? Because that's really not what it means (see wiktionary). Saying someone is operating in bad faith is saying that they are aiming to decieve and conceal their true intentions, which are secretly malicious. Now obviously, since you're saying you have been operating in bad faith; i don't think that's some kind of confession from you. I think you just genuinely didn't understand the term and been using it a way that's not necessarily de-escalatory. Morwen (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misusing the word operating, I was meaning how situations are approached. I felt since the warning from Adolphus was the first time he directly communicated with me, inferring I'm a liar from the go is not good-faithed, and that's what bothered me. I'm not gonna argue I was not childish in my response, it just sucked that I was being thought of in a way where I was apparently intentionally lying to bolster my stance. Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I'm still not convinced you're using that term right. What he was doing was not assuming good faith. That doesn't mean he's "bad faith", or "not good-faithed". Morwen (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find good faith was being assumed of me when Adolphus first addressed me about my edit. From there it just became bickering. I have no personality issues against them, just that them calling me a liar about my edit did not afford the interaction the space to discuss it neutrally because they seemed to assume bad faith of me. Apologies if I'm causing any confusions with how I'm trying to articulate this. Rusted AutoParts 02:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with what you've said now. Morwen (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you AN/I for making me the bad guy after being personally attacked for merely suggesting that "lying is pretty dumb" and then asking for an apology. I did not outright call them a liar before they called me condescending and a "lazy editor wishing only to complain". Nor did I ever act in bad faith. I have learned from this experience that it is perfectly OK to make personal attacks for no reason, and that "I thought they were acting in bad faith" is the only excuse you need to cast aspersions and get away with it. I have once again been reminded that my opinion is worth less than nothing around here and interacting with other editors in general is clearly a bad idea. It's this kind of bullshit that runs off good editors. - Adolphus79 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Saying “lying is pretty dumb” is a personal attack in context, and you would find this obvious if it had been directed at you. In the meantime, a gracious apology has been offered by the other party to this dispute. Perhaps you should take some of the many pieces of good advice you have been offered instead of complaining more? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We have no interest in adjudicating who is the "good guy" and "bad guys" in disputes. What we want is people having childish spats with each other to grow up and get back to working on the project constructively or find a more appropriate forum than English Wikipedia to snipe at each other. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The temporary account and CoffeeCrumbs are both right. You sound exhausting to deal with. This passive-aggressive attitude is not civil, and it seems indicative of a battleground mentality when it comes to minor editing disputes. Comparing Rusted's behavior to yours shows a noticeable difference in attitudes. Rusted has had issues with civility in the (distant) past but seems to have calmed down a lot over the years. At this point, I think Rusted is generally pretty calm until poked, and you're poking him. Next time, maybe try fixing problems in articles instead of leaving drive-by cleanup tags. Wikipedia needs more people who fix problems and fewer who just tag them for other people to fix. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are implying that all I do is drive-by tag articles, and have never fixed or improved any, I suggest you take a closer look at my contributions before running your mouth. Obviously, you're just another editor wanting to continue dragging me through the mud after this situation was already done and over last night (when Rusted and I both apologized to each other). Do you normally assume all of an editor's activity here at Wikipedia based on a single edit and pile on with insults, or just for me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Being a WikiImp is not against the rules of Wikipedia. Tagging articles helps other editors to fix issues on articles, even if the tagger doesn't fix it themselves. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That would be completely true if it were not me that they are bitching about... although I don't identify as a WikiImp... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

User:Monkegamer123

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

---

Monkegamer123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. This user created Draft:DoorDash Girl controversy which is borrowing rather heavily from this deleted article without attribution. Personally, copyright-wise, I don't mind. But I can't remember if anyone else made significant contributions to that article before it was deleted. So my permission might not be enough.

And then I noticed Monkegamer123 has more drafts. Uh-oh. I have a bad feeling about this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It's one thing to have a bad feeling, but is there anything else in the user's article drafts that suggests reusing deleted/copyrighted material? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: maybe it's a one-off. People tend to be creatures of habit, but it's technically possible. If someone was copying from sources beyond Earwig's reach, wow would we even know? Or alternatively, could an LLM violate copyright like this? That might be an "innocent" explanation. (well, more innocent than intentionally violating someone else's copyright) At any rate, you've been warned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your concern is reasonable, but I presume that WP:AGF would have you reach out to the user first to seek clarification. (You have a particularly good reason to do that because you believe the user to be recycling copyrighted content you authored!) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Jprg1966, I may have grown more cynical over the years. I've asked now, but I'm having trouble imagining what a fully innocent excuse could be.
Even if it is a one-off an admin should check if anyone else made any non-minor contributions to that article and whether those also ended up in the draft. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Monkegamer123 made no edits to the deleted article. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruptive editing of Droop quota and related articles

Proportional elections (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest identity of an editor who has, for ~2 years, repeatedly reinserted the same disputed material into Droop quota, single transferable vote, instant-runoff voting, and related articles against a talk-page consensus while continuing to bludgeon the discussion. The editor insists the article should foreground the "original"/rounded Droop quota (votes/(seats+1), rounded up, +1), while consensus is to present the mathematically clean "exact" Droop quota (votes/(seats+1)) first. Editor also repeatedly introduces major mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and formatting, excessively verbose content, and mathematical errors (making a case for a WP:CIR ban).

Examples of edit-warring include:

• WP:IDHT: claims "there is no consensus in talk"
• Feb 2025
• Apr 2026
• Apr 2026
• 2026-04-25
• 2026-04-25 "Defended original Droop against exact Droop"

Prior addresses/ranges: 68.150.205.46 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), 68.148.137.191 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), 2604:3D09:8880:11E0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 2604:3D09:887F:4680::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The article was semi-protected once for this and the behavior resumed on expiry.

Consensus on the talk page favors presenting the mathematical/exact Droop quota, with multiple uninvolved editors providing sources and reasoning:

• DominikPeters ([54]): "the mathematically correct way to use the Droop quota is as follows: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above votes/(seats+1)."
• Affinepplan ([55]): "I think the exact Droop quota should be presented as "correct" with others as historical artifacts. it is quite common, in general, in the sciences, that the exact formulation of a particular concept may be refined over time and yet keep the same name. see for example mathematical "continuity" which has been reformalized many times with new tools over the centuries".
• Quantling ([56]): "As a mathematician deriving this from scratch, I would [...] reflect the mathematical limit as ε → 0+."
• Joeyconnick ([57]) has reverted similar edits.

These editors and I have explained the issue with sources over three years, which the user continues to ignore (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and engages in repeated WP:BLUDGEONING, creating massive walls of text repeating the exact same arguments over and over.

Proposed remedy: that Proportional elections be topic-banned from electoral quotas, electoral systems, social choice, and related topics, broadly construed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

you seem not to have notified the party you're reporting. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now been notified.

I believe Closed Limelike Curves is wrong to push "exact Droop". But it is not used in any official application of Droop.

And his push in this direction is confused by saying you must have more than exact Droop to be elected, which really means achieving the real Droop as minimum.

Adherence to Thomas Droop's Droop (not exact Droop) is supported by this statement

• DominikPeters ([54]): "the mathematically correct way to use the Droop quota is as follows: a candidate is elected if their support is strictly above votes/(seats+1)."above" exact Droop

despite CLC claiming that remark as support for his position.

I also believe Joey Connick has been clear that Thomas Droop's Droop should be recognized as crucial to the Wiki Droop quota article.

I have always said that exact Droop can be mentioned in Wiki Droop but should not be presented as the only form of Droop. It is not used in any official application today.

Any change I had made to Droop article has been equally or worse undone by CLC, so the fight, if there is one, is not one sided.

It seemed inaccurate and unfair to me for the presentation of exact Droop to be continued for months and months, and after a cooling off period, I did put forward my reasonable and factual-based correctives.

much of my reasoning is presented in the Talk section of the article.

Extending this fight to a ban on my contributions in other contexts is just malicious, IMO Proportional elections (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Narym2025

Narym2025 (talk · contribs) has plenty of "stop signs" in their user page, obviously not paid attention to. --Altenmann >talk 03:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on why you opened this complaint and supply relevant diffs? Otherwise, I don't see it getting much of a response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Guz13 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

31h block for edit warring. @Altenmann you know better than to file such vague reports. The next one that has no diffs nor clear explanation will be speedy closed. Star Mississippi 01:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What a weird trout-slap. I clearly wrote to look at their user page. I have no personal complaint to show any diffs. If you think it is OK for a person to amass a dozen of strict warnings in user talk page with no response, feel free to ignore my report next time. --Altenmann >talk 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You did not write that @Altenmann. The total of your report was "Narym2025 (talk · contribs) has plenty of "stop signs" in their user page, obviously not paid attention to." You don't need a personal complaint to show diffs. Please respect your fellow editors time and don't make folks go on a treasure hunt. Star Mississippi 12:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, I did write "has plenty of "stop signs" in their user page". If you think that this comment is ambiguous and requires "treasure hunt", you probably should leave this hard work of looking into user's page to someone else and do not attack whistleblowers, and don't demand them to go on a real treasure hunt for to try and figure out what a dozen Wikipedians were complaining about. To my good understanding, coming from {{uw-v3}}, it is enough to get four warnings to get blocked. If now the requirement grew to fourteen, sorry, I didnt know this. --Altenmann >talk 15:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be totally honest, when I first saw the report it was rather difficult to properly consider for one massive reason - the Talk page warnings didn't have any diffs attached (some didn't specify an article).

This unfortunately meant that the only way to fully understand this person's editing history, and whether some or all of the warnings were warranted, was to literally dig through the history manually in order to figure out which edits each report was referring to.

As the reporting editor, it was ultimately your responsibility to state your case in the least taxing way for the reader. If you can look for and add diffs yourself, that saves x-number of your readers from having to do the same thing.

Although I fully understand why you felt that the Talk page itself was enough, it unfortunately wasn't in this particular case and diffs would really have helped. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Blue-Sonnet for hopefully making it a little more clear than I did. No one is attacking whistleblowers or anyone else. Stop signs are not evidence of anything. Diffs are necessary for admins to act. If you don't want to provide them, don't open a report @Altenmann. (I am not the only editor, admin or otherwise, making this request in this very thread. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Veesterrooboi

Veesterrooboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned on their talk page by multiple editors (ESkog, LuniZunie, Jessicapierce, Hzh, and myself) over several months for disruptive edits to multiple pages. Most recently, they have been persistently editing Putian people in an attempt to change the topic of the article (e.g. Special:Diff/1359678622, Special:Diff/1359849711, Special:Diff/1360533190; the second diff also has a personal attack in the edit summary). Both Jessicapierce and I have warned Veesterrooboi specifically about this page and they have continued to edit disruptively. [Edit: Previous instances of vandalism include:

• Special:Diff/1348478391
• Special:Diff/1334289171
• Special:Diff/1281806278

Almost every edit by this editor has been reverted (only a few of these reverts were by me).] Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC), edited 13:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC).

There is discussion (or rather warnings) on a user talk page, and apparently now there's discussion here. There is, conversely, no discussion at the one place it should appear, that being Talk:Putian people. I suggest that some discussion take place there, rather than continued edit warring. (And while the edit summary you point to, Freelance Intellectual, is indeed less than ideal, your inappropriate characterization of these edits as "vandalism" is not great either. However strongly you may disagree with these edits, they are not vandalism.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: That's a fair point for that particular page. I raised this report as this appeared to me to be a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. I presented the most recent example of disruptive behaviour; previous behaviour is unambiguously vandalism. I can update the OP if that would be helpful. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do not edit comments after they've been replied to. If there's more to say, just say it in an additional comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of that general principle. I included a new timestamp, following WP:REDACT and believing it was best to keep all the information in one place. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked Veesterrooboi 31 hours for the repeated personal attacks. Discussion should continue on any further required sanctions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Preventing XC from being automatically given due to permission gaming

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

---

Komasi23i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin give and remove XC from Komasi23i, in order to prevent them from automatically gaining XC upon reaching 500 edits? They decided to attempt permission gaming in the sandbox. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

CU blocked. KylieTastic (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced content

~2026-36038-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Temporary account has been adding persistent unsourced content to Draft:2027 in American television regarding a fake The Life and Times of Juniper Lee sequel series and a fake TV movie (examples can be found here and here). I previously tried to report them here after I’d given them a final warning for vandalism, but I was told the edits didn’t constitute vandalism and that I should explain sourcing requirements instead. I figured I might have better luck here. MissusLunafreya (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems like a vandalism only account. Guz13 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

While I’d reported the account for vandalism before, I was told the second time that their edits didn’t constitute such. In hindsight, I may have used the wrong warnings for this, which would explain why both my reports were rejected. MissusLunafreya (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

AIV reports often have to be done quickly due to the nature and amount of reports, so a report might not be accepted if the reasoning isn't clear enough. In this case it looks like the first was rejected because they hadn't continued after the last warning (it's possible - albeit unlikely - that the warning might have worked) [58] and the second report didn't explain why it was vandalism. [59] In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I must have made the mistake of assuming the second time that the report was self-explanatory. I didn’t want to bog the report down with too many details (after all reports are meant to be kept short), so I didn’t explain further. MissusLunafreya (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's fine, I've done it too! At least admins will be able to take a proper look at the case here, even though it'll take a little bit longer. Thankfully, it seems like they've stopped for now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Paravostok is playing fantasy election games

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

This editor seems to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia because they are playing fantasy election games. Three weeks ago, this editor created a sandbox with an infobox describing a 2028 United Kingdom election. It was nominated for deletion as crystal balling in [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paravostok/sandbox, and was deleted. The editor created a new sandbox, which was about a 2024 election. As User:Bearcat noted in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paravostok/sandbox (2nd nomination), it was contrary to fact, and so contained different BLP violations. The originator has now removed the fictional material, so there is no longer a reason to delete the sandbox again. But this editor is wasting the community's time. I can't think of any sort of a partial block that would be useful. Unfortunately, with 38 total edits, they appear to be a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I have contributed to multiple articles, such as the, Lothian Airlink, Armadale, West Lothian, Ember (coach operator), and others. I understand I have broken the rules and that is why I deleted the offending content completely voluntarily. I am trying to learn, and being called a "net negative" for a misunderstanding in my own sandbox is incredibly discouraging. Paravostok (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would've given an explanation on their talk page before ANI. I'm sure Paravostok is willing to remove all of the fictional or speculative election content they've created. This could be hosted on another website, or even a private installation of MediaWiki with some technical know-how. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Thebiguglyalien. I have actually already completely removed the fictional content from my sandbox because I now understand it is against policy. I appreciate the advice and will look into hosting my creative projects on a private installation instead. I am entirely willing to cooperate and feel like this was an unnecessary escalation. Paravostok (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest removing all of it from your sandbox, since a sandbox shouldn't duplicate content for articles that already exist. You might also want to remove it from your user page at User:Paravostok, your main user page generally isn't used for writing content either way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

We see walled gardens of fantasy election results on a regular basis, and they're all inappropriate things to have anywhere on Wikipedia. Please remove everything concerning fictional elections or projected elections. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am aware that some editors think that I should have cautioned the editor on their user talk page. I thought that they should have learned from the first deletion of their sandbox that they had a choice of asking what was permitted or of trying to test the limits, but the problem with trying to test the limits is that you might transgress the limits. As Acroterion says, we see walled gardens of fantasy election results on a regular basis. An editor who creates one once is assumed not to have known that it wasn't permitted. I think that an editor who persists isn't making enough effort to comply with the guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do so many editors create these fantasy election pages? Is there an off-wiki group that coordinates them? Are these editors taking advantage of Wikipedia offering neat graphics? If so, that is a violation of Wikipedia is not a web host. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

In alternate history and worldbuilding communities like on Reddit, the Wikipedia infobox is a very popular format for presenting events like elections and battles. I recall on one of these subreddits someone actually posted a tutorial instructing people on how to use their personal sandbox to write these infoboxes, then use the preview function (without hitting 'publish') to take screenshots of it.

I'm sure some people miss that last part and don't realise that these kinds of things aren't allowed to be published here even in userspace. Athanelar (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking this to ANI at this stage was overly harsh/WP:BITEy. While we're not a webhost or a place for alternative history, we don't need to police user sandboxes so strictly. Like, c'mon, they're sandboxes. If someone wants to play with infoboxes there, they're not hurting anyone and it's us wasting our time by going after people for that. Now, a "walled garden" of multiple alternative history pages is different, and makes sense to delete. But c'mon. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree, it doesn't look like they participated in the MFD and I can't see any posts where anyone took some time to properly explain things to them.

Ideally they would have seen the MFD & understood the problem from there, but XFD's can bit confusing (and overwhelming) if you are new and aren't familiar with the process.

If they had clear explanations and continued regardless, then perhaps it would have been appropriate to bring the matter to a public noticeboard like ANI. As we can now see, they only needed someone to take a few minutes to explain what the problem was. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 15:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry yes, I had forgotten about that; I did not mean to waste anyones time and am sorry overall, but I just wanted to be clear I was not intentionally being malicious. Paravostok (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're forgiven. Just don't do it again. If you want any help with editing actual articles, feel free to ask on my talk page. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Seungri400 and Gapla

We have another micronation being promoted in the context of the Croatia-Serbia border dispute. I tried to reason with this editor at User talk:Seungri400#"Gapla" and Talk:Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Unclear criteria for inclusion, to no avail. I don't think this is an acceptable level of wikilawyering. --Joy (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ~2026-33640-28

~2026-33640-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AIV report was declined.

This TA has been editing for a few weeks now, making largely unhelpful edits including RETAIN-related disruption ([60], [61], [62]), adding fake "Further information" hatnotes linking to articles that don't have further information ([63], [64], [65], [66]), and adding barely-comprehensible gibberish to articles [67], [68], [69], [70]).

This is all clearly disruptive, and the several unintelligible edit summaries suggest a CIR issue as well. --Sable232 (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Blocked 31H, although imagine we'll be in INDEF territory Star Mississippi 01:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the same - this does not inspire much confidence. --Sable232 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Another TA adding unsourced content

I did originally report this to AIV, since that was the obvious venue, but was directed here… oh well… ~2026-35434-92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has up to level 4 warnings about reliable sources on their talk page, and yet continues [71][72][73][74][75][76] to make unsourced changes, or changes where the source they provide doesn’t verify the content (the last two diffs - they provide a source which is a link to a travel agent who say they can organise BA flights but they don’t say which airport they depart from).

Given they appear to be continuing unabated despite level 4 warnings, is there a way to make them understand sources are not optional? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

User Kim Nito

User Kim Nito removed 29,227 bytes of sourced content from this article on June 23, 2026 without valid justification. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360726763 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36484-72 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring and mass deletion on Chinese Taipei national baseball team by User:Kim Nito

User User:Kim Nito has been repeatedly removing 39,658 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36449-49 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring and mass deletion on Chinese Taipei national baseball team by User:Kim Nito

User User:Kim Nito has been repeatedly removing 39,658 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. This is not an isolated incident — Kim Nito has made multiple removals today alone. Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224

Previous stable version before removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360753829 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-36449-49 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

My decision to revert your edit stemmed from the fact that you had reverted the edit of a trusted user without providing a valid justification. You seem to have overreacted to the situation when I had only reverted your edits twice. I will no longer interfere with that article. Do whatever you edit and I won't interfere, as I do not wish to engage in an edit war too, but perhaps you should also discuss with 162 etc.. Best! – Kim Nito (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

another TA adding it the previous day doesn't constitute a stable version, frankly. Morwen (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Three reports from two TA's that appear to be the same editor. Regardless, this is a content dispute that doesn't belong at ANI - this noticeboard should be a last resort, not the first.

The TA has hit three reverts after being reverted by different editors.

@~2026-36449-49/@~2026-36484-72 please stop reverting and discuss your changes on the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

...and we hit revert #4 whilst I was writing that. [77][78][79][80] In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I made the original removal of the content, and I stand by it. Disagreement should be resolved by discussion at the talkpage, not edit warring. I've now made similar edits at the Philippines and Japan team articles per the same rationale. 162 etc. (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a (IMO possibly AI-generated) response and directed them to the article Talk page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

File:RoseFaulkner1930.jpeg

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

---

Could someone undo the rev-deletion of the first version of this image. I want to move it to Commons as this image, originally in an American magazine from 1930, is now in the public domain. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done but not really an ANI issue - please use WP:REFUND for any future undelete requests. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Source removal and WP:NPA violation by KhndzorUtogh

The user @KhndzorUtogh is clearly violating WP:NPA rules by using past bans as a weapon to smear me instead of addressing the discrepancy between the content and source at hand. Using a user's past bans to discredit them in a completely unrelated current change is a clear personal attack. [81] He/she also arbitrarily deletes sources from the article.[82] I request that administrators focus entirely on the diff links and compliance with the rules of the most recent changes. Erdemozcantr (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA says that you cannot make any edits about Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both until you have 500 edits under your belt; that's what extended confirmed means. And everything that was removed was about politics, ethnic relations, or conflicts involving both. Sesquilinear (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Also you're supposed to inform the other user with the ANI notice. I've done so. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, as far as I know, protected articles have a key symbol that prevents editing. The article in question didn't have that. Besides that, how can we tell if an article is protected? Erdemozcantr (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's about Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide then it is extended confirmed restricted even if it isn't extended confirmed protected.

WP:GS/AA says explicitly On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters, bolding mine. The reverts are allowed as enforcement of the restriction. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Now I understand better. I reversed the destructive edit made by the other editor, and I never considered that the subject of the article, a historical mosque in Azerbaijan, could be a political symbol. Does having 500 edits give an editor the right to make destructive edits and personal attacks? Erdemozcantr (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I never considered that the subject of the article, a historical mosque in Azerbaijan, could be a political symbol. A topic like that is going to have aspects unrelated to the restricted topic and aspects related to it. The history before 1992 probably has edits you can make to it without hitting the restriction, for instance, and if you had edited only that part and not brought up Artsakh, it probably would not have been an automatic reversion. Sesquilinear (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If the previous ban was relevant or related, then it can be helpful to mention it for context when discussing or reporting concerns to an administrator.

For example, if you were blocked for one day several years ago for edit warring, but the current concern is about violating a topic ban, the reporting editor would be told to knock it off & it wouldn't be looked on kindly by others.

In this case, your block was related to the current issue and took place less than a year ago. Mentioning it was probably unnecessary because admins can already see your history, but I can understand why it was brought up in this specific case. Please take care as accusing someone of making personal attacks after it's been made clear they aren't attacks can be a personal attack in itself.

Regarding "destructive" edits, your edits can be reverted since they were made in violation of Wikipedia policy - they shouldn't have been there in the first place. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[83] [84] The other editor's bringing up all these accusations and past ban I've received is an attempt to deflect attention from the personal attack and destructive editing issue. The sources removed from the article were previously accepted and approved sources, and he/she removed them without even opening them up for discussion on the talk page. Erdemozcantr (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks from Crowreeve

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

---

Crowreeve added an excessive number of cleanup tags here and here. When warned they said, "You are pathetic to ask for donations. You worthless and outdated pseudo-source. It's not surprising that Wikipedia is a rotting corpse. And you have the gall to beg for hand-outs. Fuck you, you pathetic piece of shit." (diff) Seafarerer might be an alt account of theirs, as they made similar edits (diff) but only once. Streetr4 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Gnomingstuff – Improper removal of properly sourced content based on false LLM assumption

I am writing to seek administrative attention regarding the actions of user Gnomingstuff, who removed a substantial, well-sourced article I created on Information technology management, along with a related template, based on the unsupported assumption that the content was generated by a large language model (LLM) (see Wikipedia:LLM-assisted translation).

All content was properly cited using reliable academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals, university publications, and official standards documents (ISO, ISACA, etc.). I also created a template for this article and related topics, which was also removed without justification. I have written three related articles:

• Bachelor of Information technology management
• Master of Science in Information Technology Management
• PhD in Information Technology Management

I have tried to engage constructively with Gnomingstuff on their talk page, explaining that: The content was manually researched and written over several days. I do not use LLM or AI writing tools. Some content was adapted from existing Wikipedia articles (IT infrastructure, Information system), which is standard practice. I relied on official university publications and paraphrased them to avoid copyright violations.

I didn't create the article from scratch. I added significant content to it and improved the existing article based on academic sources. The content was added between May 18 and May 26 (please see the article's history). This clearly shows that the content was not generated by an LLM, as it was built upon over several days through multiple edits.

Gnomingstuff responded only with: "Because the text reads exactly like all of the rest of the thousands of AI-generated edits we get." and has not engaged further or provided any specific examples of problematic content.

I respectfully request that an administrator:

• Review the article and its sources.
• Provide guidance on what specific changes would be needed to address the concern.
• Restore the article and template if they are found to be valid contributions.

I am more than willing to make any necessary revisions. However, I cannot accept the removal of my work based on an incorrect assumption without any specific feedback. Balash-Vologases (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

You are required to notify Gnomingstuff of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I have now notified Gnomingstuff on the talk page. Balash-Vologases (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Without any judgment as to the LLM accusation, I just wanted to point out that it's helpful and considered best practice to leave edit summaries for major edits, particularly if you're adding entire page sections. Adding source and content doesn't really count. Makes it harder to parse the editing history on occasions like this. (Non-administrator comment) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. You are right, I should have used more detailed edit summaries. To be honest, I was focused on getting the content right and making sure all sources were properly cited, and I neglected the edit summaries. Over the course of 10 days, I added a significant volume of well sourced content to improve the article. Before my involvement, the article was very poor, much of the existing content was irrelevant to the subject matter and not academically sound. The sources I used were primarily from reputable university publications, most of which have dedicated pages on the universities' official websites. Balash-Vologases (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Gnomingstuff, do you have evidence of LLM misuse other than vibes? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I really do not know how to answer this question, because there is nothing that I can provide that ever satisfies anyone. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be here, you opened this report an hour after your last message to them without giving them a proper opportunity to continue the discussion. I see no behavioral misconduct from Gnomingstuff, certainly nothing urgent, chronic or intractable. But while we're here, are you claiming original authorship over prose like:

samples from Information technology management

• In the 21st century, IT management has become a strategic partner enabling agility, innovation, and competitive advantage through cloud computing, AI, and IoT. Today, IT managers actively participate in high level executive decision making, providing counsel on technology trends, investment priorities, and risk management to help organizations anticipate disruptions and capitalize on market opportunities. Special:Diff/1355280610
• Effective IT management turns challenges into opportunities for innovation and growth. Special:Diff/1355245764
• IT strategy and planning aligns technology with business goals. Special:Diff/1355078189
• IT management has evolved into a complex function due to challenges like high employee turnover, quality/reliability issues with bespoke software, and systemic risks. Special:Diff/1355161776
• As a result, IT managers must combine technical expertise with skills in financial planning, cost control, and stakeholder coordination to ensure that technology initiatives remain aligned with organizational objectives. Special:Diff/1355090920
• For IT managers, emerging technologies bring both promise and complexity. Special:Diff/1355090920
• diffs added 02:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

? And why are you linking to WP:LLMTRANSLATE, was the content machine translated? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I understand your point about timing, and I apologize if I opened this report too quickly. I was frustrated after spending over 10 days on this work and having it removed without any specific feedback, but I acknowledge that I could have waited longer for a response.

Regarding the samples you quoted, those sections were already in the article before my contributions. They were written by earlier editors over time. My contributions were new sections such as Theoretical Foundations, Role in Business Strategy, Career pathways, Academic Programs, and others, which I added based on academic research and proper citations. Balash-Vologases (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You definitely added "As a result, IT managers must combine technical expertise with skills in financial planning, cost control, and stakeholder coordination to ensure that technology initiatives remain aligned with organizational objectives." in this edit. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 01:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the samples you quoted, those sections were already in the article before my contributions.
— User:Balash-Vologases 01:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems to be incorrect:

... As a result, IT managers must combine technical expertise with skills in financial planning, cost control, and stakeholder coordination to ensure that technology initiatives remain aligned with organizational objectives.

For IT managers, emerging technologies bring both promise and complexity. ...
— Information technology management: Diff/1355090920 by Balash-Vologases (talk · contribs), 19 May 2026

‑‑gurkubondinn 01:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

those sections were already in the article – No they weren't, you added them. Here's the diffs for each in order: [85][86][87][88][89][90]. The fact that you don't recognize your own contributions doesn't do much to support the claim that the content was not generated by an LLM. Are you by chance using an LLM to generate responses here? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

For example:

In the 21st century, IT management has become a strategic partner enabling agility, innovation, and competitive advantage through cloud computing, AI, and IoT. Today, IT managers actively participate in high level executive decision making, providing counsel on technology trends, investment priorities, and risk management to help organizations anticipate disruptions and capitalize on market opportunities.

Effective IT management turns challenges into opportunities for innovation and growth

The source I used for that content is the International College of Management, Sydney (ICMS). The article is titled 'What Is Information Technology Management and Why It Matters' and is available on their official website. You can find it here

"Ultimately, effective IT management is about creating resilient, forward-thinking technological ecosystems that can adapt to rapidly changing business landscapes. By acknowledging potential risks and implementing comprehensive mitigation strategies, organisations can transform technological challenges into opportunities for innovation and growth." Balash-Vologases (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is A) itself clearly AI-generated, and B) an advertisement for someone's degree program. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This was understandable from Gnomingstuff, as the content you added appears to be written by an LLM. The content of this edit on another article, for instance, is obviously AI generated, and ZeroGPT has it as 100% AI generated. Are you sure you have never used LLMs for any purpose related to your edits here? Even copyediting or clarifying your grammar? tony 01:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, Tony.

To clarify: I have never used ZeroGPT or any AI detection tool. I don't know why it shows 100% AI-generated.

The PDF presentation by Stephen Mann for itSMF UK (ITSM16) is 44 slides long

Under "The benefits of ESM":

• "Better service and customer experience"
• "Improved efficiency and reduced operational costs"
• "Self-service efficiencies and workload reductions"
• "Improved visibility into operations and performance"
• "Increased control and governance"

My sentence in the Wikipedia article was:

"Proponents argue that ESM improves service delivery and customer satisfaction, reduces operational costs through automation and self-service, and provides better visibility into business operations while strengthening governance."

This is a paraphrase of the source content, which I cited properly. Balash-Vologases (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Balash-Vologases, that wasn't my question. The text in the diff I linked to appears to have been written with assistance from a large language model. I'm asking if the assistance was only with structure/grammar or if it helped more than that. tony 01:37, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

If I had copied the exact text from the source, that would be a copyright violation. This is how the article should be written based on Wikipedia policies: using reliable sources, paraphrasing them in your own words, and citing them properly. That is exactly what I did. Balash-Vologases (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

So you didn't use an AI chat bot? ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 01:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have never used an LLM for my Wikipedia edits. I would appreciate the chance to contribute and modify the sections from my side. But I respectfully disagree, if every well written article is assumed to be AI generated, then we are discouraging good writing and constructive participation . I would also like to point out that this article had been in poor condition for years and was not considered a controversial or politically sensitive topic. There was no active editing or maintenance on it. Balash-Vologases (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Balash-Vologases, that wasn't my question. The text in the diff I linked to appears to have been written with assistance from a large language model. I'm asking if that assistance was only with structure/grammar or if it helped more than that. tony 01:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have a really hard time thinking that there's no LLM usage, given that every edit made by this editor is polished, overly-written, LLM-like perfect English, while when they bother to give an edit summary, it's frequently in awkward English that sounds nothing like LLM writing.

Source added! take your concern in talk page if you're disagree.

The material were added not match to any source that cited.

In the article state the citation

Balochi speaking doesn't make sense!

All texts contain of Sindh has been removed.

Too much issues here, many texts are left without citing the source

Doesn't support by the source.

Stop insert yourself into the article.back to the stable revision. This has already bene discussed

You have been told multiple times. In the next time I will inform administrators

Now, there's nothing wrong with typos and bad grammar; I'm certainly guilty of my own. But given how LLM-feeling their edits are and how different the edit summaries are, I'm highly suspicious that this editor is being transparent about LLM usage. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't belong at ANI. You made a bunch of edits and they were reverted. That's the typical WP:BRD cycle, not anything to report here. Motion to close? Apocheir (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

In 2025, Balash-Vologases' comments had a significantly different style/fluency [91][92][93] than what we are seeing in this thread. They were also mostly inactive from March 2025 until April 2026. NicheSports (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And fwiw, Pangram classifies the ANI filing as 100% AI-generated: www.pangram.com/history/5ced2bd3-01b7-439b-a8cb-f57d80cacea6?ucc=cxjp18bg5Vp

‑‑gurkubondinn 01:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

How do you know this isn't a false positive? These tools are widely documented to be unreliable, especially for formal academic writing. Balash-Vologases (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Because I also read it myself and I also reached the conclusion that this is generated text. The significant change in your spelling, grammar, and English proficiency since 2025; the convoluted phrasing in the edits that you have made in article space; and how you don't recognize the text that you have added to articles.

The Pangram results are not why I think that the ANI filing was generated, but I shared the link so that other editors can see the scan without burning any of their own free daily scans. I look at dozens or hundreds of AI-generated edits every day and this was the first time that I have logged in to my Pangram account for several days, if that tells you anything about how much I rely on Pangram to identify generated text. But Pangram is actually quite good, the most recent research that I have seen points to false negatives being far more likely than false positives.

As a bit of friendly advice, I think that you should step away from this conversation for a bit, and read the WP:USED-AI? essay in the meantime before you come back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 02:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to be as fair as possible, so I spent some time looking at Master of Science in Information Technology Management before any other editors changed it [94], then compared it to Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. Here's what I saw signs of, with one example of each where appropriate:

• WP:AIDASH
• WP:AILIST
• WP:RO3: Graduates are prepared to design digital infrastructure, apply cybersecurity and risk management practices, and align IT initiatives with business strategy across sectors such as finance, manufacturing, and media.
• WP:AIVOCAB: The Master of Science in Information Technology Management (MSITM) curriculum generally emphasizes enterprise-level planning, governance, and management of information technology. Programs commonly focus on the alignment of IT capabilities with organizational objectives, financial oversight, and risk management (Two sets of rule-of-three in this quote)
• WP:AIBOLD: IT governance and management: Strategic IT planning, IT portfolio management, and governance frameworks.

Of course, none of this is a guarantee that AI or LLM was used, but considering the grammatical errors on their older posts compared to the high-level of complexity in this articles, I'm wondering whether a translator with integrated AI may have been used? That might also explain why there are so many misunderstandings going on in this thread. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Just one case:

"The Master of Science in Information Technology Management (MSITM) curriculum generally emphasizes enterprise-level planning, governance, and management of information technology. Programs commonly focus on the alignment of IT capabilities with organizational objectives, financial oversight, and risk management."

In the source:

"designed to educate and develop managers who can effectively manage the planning, design, selection, implementation, use and administration of emerging and converging information and communications technologies."

What do you think would be the correct way to write this؟! Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

We'd rather talk to you directly. Please, put the chatgpt down. ~2026-36513-62 (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

My eyes classify the report and their responses here as AI-generated as well, both by structure and at-times nonsensical content. The difference from their prior communications is stark. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

So do mine. But someone asked for something "other than vibes", so I logged into Pangram to save everyone else the trouble. ‑‑gurkubondinn 02:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The ANI report and their responses do read as AI/LLM generated. I know there's a dislike for "vibes" but humans are much better at spotting AI-generated text than AI detectors because of those same vibes.

For my part, I have the following concerns, which make me think there could be either AI, LLM or AI-powered machine translation at play:

• Contradictory claims - stating they didn't make edits when the evidence showed they did [95]
• Edits like this one showing AI signs such as WP:RO3
• A significant change in writing style over time
• This report and their responses being written very similarly to previous AI-generated reports, and
• Difficulty in getting a clear confirmation/denial of AI-use

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I am very sorry for taking your time!! All of this is simply because I tried to improve an article that had been in poor and unreliable condition on Wikipedia for years, using sources from reputable journals and universities. This article is not even about politics, religion, or ethnicity, so there would be no reason for anyone to edit it with biased intent. Balash-Vologases (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody here has mentioned bias, appears to be another hallucination. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not want to be disrespectful, but much of this speculation about me appears to be driven by a desire to prove that a particular user did not make a mistake in their assessment of the article. I have no interest in proving anything, I am simply disappointed that my 10 days of work were wasted. Balash-Vologases (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask what I wrote that made you think I was saying you were biased? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean you at all. The above comments were made by other users who are simply trying to prove that I use LLM tools, only because I asked the reason of the removal of all the content I added to the Information Technology Management article. Balash-Vologases (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much for clearing that up!

I want to try to explain what's going on right now - we're not trying to hound you or get you into trouble, but Wikipedia is suffering a lot of damage due to AI & LLM's. It's so bad that some of us are getting burned out by it.

We've found that some editors have been using AI or LLM's without realising, because it's built into their word processor, grammar checker or language translator.

I'll be honest, the way you used to write is very different to the way you write now. You used to make a lot of grammatical errors, but now your articles use complex language that some native English-speakers would have trouble understanding.

Are you using any sort of computer program or software to help you write articles? Anything at all? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Look, Information Technology Management is an academic discipline and university major, and hundreds of academic papers have been published about it. Examples include works by Richard L. Nolan and Shoshana Zuboff, whose biographies are on Wikipedia. The academic literature on this subject would have a formal and structured style. Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It would, but can you answer my last question about your edits please? I'm not really interested in the way that academic literature is written, I'd like to talk about the way you write.

I think it would be really helpful to have it properly cleared up, because I'm worried you might be using AI/LLM's without realising it. The way you wrote just over a year ago is very different to the way you wrote the article, so I was hoping to clear this up with you.

Are you using any sort of computer program or software to help you write articles? Anything at all? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have already said that I do not use these tools. These tools have no real understanding of the article, they simply generate large volumes of text.

What I added to the article was based on university and academic sources, because these universities actually offer this degree, and their curricula and career pathways are designed by experts and graduates in the field.

Please refer to the Information Technology Management article. I added a section titled "Theoretical Foundations". Do you really think LLM tools are capable of understanding and producing that content? Those sections were based on established academic frameworks that are directly relevant to the field of Information Technology Management, such as Resource-Based View, Agency Theory, and Transaction Cost Economics.

This is not generic text. This is specialized academic content that requires genuine knowledge of the discipline.. Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I really have nothing to say here that has not already been said, except this was a really fun thing to come back from dinner to Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not convinced there's a human in the loop here at all. —Cryptic 02:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

His early edits show he isn't a competent English writer. [96]. But suddenly, LLMs learn English from him. Where is the ban hammer. ~2026-36513-62 (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

2023!! Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve found three examples of possibly hallucinated and certainly deficient references in this users edits to Graylog (software) - [97] the second url doesn’t exist, same with the url at [98], while meanwhile [99] does exist with the right title but the author is a mismatch for the author of the post. Morwen (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I probably forgot to cite the correct source, or mixed something up with another source by accident. Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

can you explain the process by which a lapse in memory can result in multiple links that 404 being added to an article as a reference over different edits? Morwen (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You're right. the correct link is here. It was my mistake. Balash-Vologases (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

can you answer my question? Morwen (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

And, for that matter, how you came up with the title argument? —Cryptic 04:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Personal attacks by IP proxy and off-wiki coordination by User:Magapetro

• Magapetro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ~2026-36483-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting IP editor ~2026-36483-68 for personal attacks and User:Magapetro for facilitating and coordinating with this proxy off-wiki. On Magapetro's user talk page, the IP left a message referring to me as a "clown"[100] while explicitly asking to coordinate changes to the Battle of Lumë article. Instead of cautioning the IP about WP:CIVIL, Magapetro immediately responded by moving the collaboration off-wiki, stating: "Hey brother, please check your instagram, I sent you a follow,"[101] to which the IP replied, "ok brother i texted you" [102]. While off-wiki communication is not strictly forbidden, utilizing it to organize edits with an IP that is actively insulting other users is a severe violation of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. I am mentioning Magapetro's previous behavior here solely to establish a clear pattern: just 16 days ago, in a now-archived ANI report regarding the Koplik War, Magapetro directed the exact same insult ("clown") at me,[103] and was confronted by editors (including Blue-Sonnet and AirshipJungleman29) for using ChatGPT to fabricate fake academic sources and utilizing different IPs (~2026-34124-29 and ~2026-34308-84) to simulate consensus.. Because that thread was archived without formal sanctions when he stopped responding, the identical pattern—the specific insult, the use of IP proxies, and attempts to bypass consensus—has now simply migrated to a new article. I request that administrators block the IP for personal attacks and review Magapetro ongoing pattern of proxy coordination and disruption. FranéRogoz (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This report is being used to distract from an active content dispute where the reporting editor & their collaborators are trying to push an unsourced "victory" label into an infobox. An IP editor left a comment on my talk page & because their tone wasnt fitting for wiki and clearly aggressive/dramatic, I suggested moving the conversation off wiki to Instagram in an attempt to prevent on wiki drama & keep the talk pages clean, I havent even messaged him yet but yeah I realize this was bad judgment under WP:MEAT & WP:CANVASS guidelines, apologies. I have ABSOLUTELY not coordinated any "meatpuppetry" vote stacking or edit warring off wiki. I have made no edits the articles. Im gonna cease all such off wiki communication immediately & keep everything transparently on the talk page. I have already openly explained to and apologized for a past mistake where I lazily used outdated, inaccurate notes I compiled from gpt on the Koplik War article weeks ago, notice how you're still having a go at me on that but I haven't mentioned you ai generating a WHOLE response to my first message. You can clearly see I've completely stopped doing this through all my talk page comments For the current article like Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921) and Battle of Lumë, Im only using academic, reliable and verifiable sources & treaties like the 1913 Protocol of Florence.

This ANI report was filed right after the content dispute on the talk page turned against them. Just hours ago, the editor working with the this reporter explicitly conceded on the talk page: "While sources don’t say 'Yugoslavia military won the war'..." because they can't provide a reliable source that explicitly supports the "Yugoslav Victory" label in the infobox, they're weaponizing past incidents to try to get me blocked instead of following WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. Again I apologize for any past lack clumsy handling of the IP user. I want to fully comply with WP:CIVIL & WP:CANVASS moving forward & I ask that we let the content dispute be settled neutrally by community (and historical) consensus based on actual sources. Magapetro (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators, please note that in the statement above, Magapetro explicitly admits to violating WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS by directing an abusive IP proxy to off-wiki channels. His defense that he was trying to "prevent on-wiki drama" is invalid; the standard protocol for handling an IP that violates WP:NPA is to issue a formal user warning, not to invite them to collaborate privately on Instagram.

Furthermore, Magapetro is attempting to deflect from his behavioral violations by turning this board into a content dispute, which is entirely inappropriate for ANI. His claim that I filed this report because I "cannot provide reliable sources" is demonstrably false. As the talk page history shows, I have just provided high-quality, peer-reviewed academic literature (Nicola C. Guy, 2008) which explicitly verifies the territorial changes and refutes his claims as seen in this edit.

He is continuing to weaponize baseless WP:ASPERSIONS about me using AI, which is the exact same deflection tactic he used in the previous ANI report when he was actually caught fabricating non-existent books using ChatGPT. I respectfully ask administrators to focus strictly on his admitted pattern of off-wiki coordination and the proxy personal attacks, rather than allowing him to litigate talk page content here. FranéRogoz (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass deletion and edit warring on Chinese Taipei national baseball team

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

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

Multiple users have been repeatedly removing 44,567 bytes of sourced content from Chinese Taipei national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, triggering an edit war. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Users involved:

User:Kim Nito — repeatedly removing sourced content User:162 etc. — joined in removing content

Diffs of removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360749746&oldid=1360734773 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360726763&oldid=1360727224 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&diff=1360772787&oldid=1360770014

Current stable version before removals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_Taipei_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360770014

~2026-36449-49 (talk)

Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.

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

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

User User:162 etc. has removed 28,545 bytes of sourced content from Philippines national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, claiming the boxscores belong only in tournament articles. Similar game result content exists on comparable articles such as Japan national baseball team and South Korea national baseball team, making COATRACK an inconsistent justification. Diffs of removal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&diff=1360852597&oldid=1360771570

Current stable version to preserve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360852597

~2026-36549-39 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @~2026-36549-39, when starting discussions about other users on this noticeboard, you are required to notify them as mentioned on the top of this page. I have done so for you. I see that you opened a discussion on the talk page of the today at 01:13 UTC, the user's talk page at 01:14 UTC and here at 01:16 UTC. Do you think it would be best to allow the WP:BRD cycle play out correctly here and await a response from the user before starting a thread here, or is there more discussions to this that I may have missed? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for notifying the user. Yes, this is not isolated — User:162 etc. has removed content from multiple articles in the same pattern today, including Japan national baseball team (61,456 bytes removed) and Chinese Taipei national baseball team (44,567 bytes removed). User:Kim Nito has also been involved in removing content from the Chinese Taipei article. This appears to be a coordinated mass removal campaign across multiple baseball articles.

~2026-36549-39 (talk)

Mass deletion of sourced content by 162 etc.

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

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

User User:162 etc. has removed 61,456 bytes of sourced content from Japan national baseball team citing WP:COATRACK, claiming the boxscores belong only in tournament articles. This is now a pattern of mass deletion across multiple national baseball team articles including Philippines national baseball team and Chinese Taipei national baseball team, making this a coordinated effort to remove sourced content from baseball articles. Diffs of removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_baseball_team&diff=prev&oldid=1360771173 Current stable version to preserve: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_national_baseball_team&oldid=1360854129 ~2026-36549-39 (talk)

Also — the fact that 162 etc. is now deleting content from multiple articles in the same pattern significantly strengthens your case. This is no longer just a content dispute — it looks like a coordinated mass removal campaign. This is exactly the kind of thing ANI admins take seriously.

~2026-36549-39 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-36549-39, please stop using a chatbot/AI/LLM to communicate. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 02:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm almost certain they used AI to reply to me here, hopefully they won't continue to use it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)