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

Original research and personal attack by 2nightmania (also WP:NOTHERE)

2nightmania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:2nightmania has demonstrated that he is WP:NOTHERE and is consistently adding original research to articles, which I warned on the user's talk page twice on original research alone (overall four times). Yesterday, the user responded: "Man screw you. “Original reasearch” shut up." [1]

The clear lack of accepting guidance on editing, warnings from me and other editors, and lack of compliance to Wikipedia policy leads me to believe this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia.

Additionally, on House of Black I was told by this user: "Lemonademan22 stop saying they are still active. They’re not. They disbanded months ago. Nothing on AEW shows that the stable is still active. Black is gone, Matthews is injured, King is in a tag team with Bandido and Hart has her own stable so stop already." I reverted this edit, and warned the user whom then responded with the personal attack. [2]

The original research I warned the user for: [3] [4]

Warnings: [5] [6] [7] Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh good, professional wrestling. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone through a bunch of this guy's edits. Have they EVER added a source for anything, reliable or not? It looks like they're just dashing right to the keyboard for post-TV show updates, each and every time. Ravenswing 14:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked 50 edits. No, they do not use sourcing for anything. This appears to be a case of I-saw-it-myself-so-its-true; see this as evidence of that. They've been warned about using reliable sources but have ignored the warnings. @2nightmania: You can either choose to use citations to reliable sources for material you add to an article that is contested or you can find yourself blocked from editing this project. There is no middle ground on this, and no amount of "screw you"'s or "cmon man"'s are going to get around this. Here, we rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not what you saw. Are we clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I might have blocked I’d I’d seen their behaviour. IMHO I will be surprised if they can justify their actions. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Doug Weller The user in question has continued taking jabs at me in the edit summary. [8] Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoft Please see [9] an uncivil jab in an edit summary. Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a rather staunch advocate of adherence to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But, this edit summary is not enough to block someone for. However, @2nightmania: if you can't be bothered to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then it's clear you shouldn't be contributing. I strongly suggest you stop with your uncivil comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, but given everything else here, not looking for a ban but perhaps a temporary topic ban? Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Worth noting in case anyone here is unaware that professional wrestling is a community-designated CTOP. WP:GS/PW Athanelar (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This user is continuing to edit, but still has not responded here and has yet to add a single source to any of their edits. I recommend a block from article space until they respond here. [10][11][12][13][14][15]-- Mike 🗩 13:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with Mike: looks like a clear-cut case for an immediate indef to me. Jusdafax (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I also agree with Mike that a block from article space is necessary to get them to respond here given they have not responded so far and have continued to make unsourced edits. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 22:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What is happening at List of people from Manila?

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

---

• List of people from Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Regulus marzo 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome 90888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Regulus Marzo handsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome gulus 88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome boy 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome happy 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Handsome happyman 989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They don't seem to be disrupting anything but six usernames containing "handsome" and two with "Regulus Marzo/marzo"? Is this all the same editor or a group of meatpuppets?

Not clear what the purpose of the accounts is but its a quack quack situation here so i have semi protected the page for a week and indef'd all the accounts until one of them can come up with a good explanation in an unblock request. Mfield (Oi!) 20:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems you forgot Regulus Marzo 8 (talk · contribs) and Regulus Marzo 11 (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Got them, assume you meant Regulus marzo 11 (talk · contribs) Mfield (Oi!) 03:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding Regulus Marzo 10 (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Holy cow! This "Regulus" editor has been around for 20 years? Regulus marzo4103@yahoo.com (talk · contribs)   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A quick glance at the sock drawer suggests it's the same person. Other unblocked accounts include Regulus marzo 5, Regulusmarzo@hotmai.l.com, and Regulusmarzo@hotmail..com. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Also Regulus marzo (talk · contribs).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Add Handsome man gulus (talk · contribs) Borgenland (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Possibly related: Handsome man 98 (talk · contribs).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Isjadd773 and the issue of "non-blood" relatives

Isjadd773 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. As far as I'm aware there are no rules on Wikipedia (exclusively on Template:Infobox person) that dictates the removal of the names of "non-blood" relatives from infoboxes. Yet, for the past 24 hours, User:Isjadd773 has attempted this at high profile pages, including David Beckham, Victoria Beckham, Nicola Peltz, Brooklyn Beckham, and Nelson Peltz. I told them in one of my edit summaries that they needed to take the matter to the talk page and discuss it there, which frankly they did not. I was the one who started the discussion and in the midst of the ongoing discussion they attempted another removal on Nicola Peltz's article (violating WP:STATUSQUO as the stable version of the article before Jan 20 included the in-laws names), ignored my comment to revert that edit, and instead went on to completely alter the infobox at David Beckham. This is simply unacceptable and unconstructive behavior. I'll be glad if the admins could look into it. Keivan.f^Talk 18:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Baseless. You started a discussion the article talk page for Victoria Beckham - which remains active. There were no reverts on the Victoria Beckham article during the active discussion. There was a revert on an article for Nicola Peltz - where there is no active talk page discussion. On the Nicola Peltz article, you have 3 reverts against 2 different editors and you're insisting on maintain QUO there because you've exhausted your reverts within a 24 hour time frame. My edit on the David Beckham is somewhat unrelated. The standard infobox template for Football players on Wikipedia, whether those players are active or retired, is Infobox Football biography. This is the norm. Not infobox person. Infobox Football biography doesn't include relatives, which is your main point of contention. If you want that changed then ask for amendments to the standard infobox Football biography template. It's none of my concern. Thanks. Isjadd773 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You know full well that all your edits are completely in line with one another and systematic. What am I supposed to do? Start four different threads on four different pages to address your absolutely bizarre behavior? And you gave yourself away with this comment and the one at Talk:Victoria Beckham. Knowing full well that I was at three reverts on Nicola Peltz you went ahead amidst an ongoing discussion, that you damn well know covered that page as well, and reverted it to your "appropriate" version. I'm still waiting for you to point to a single rule or policy that confirms the nonsense that "non-blood" relatives should be excluded from infoboxes. Keivan.f^Talk 18:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I've already outlined my position. There's not much more for me to add. This ANI is baseless and you're conflating multiple things across different articles. The most egregious one is you accusing me of doing something wrong on the David Beckham article. Infobox Football Biography is the standard template for all Football players (active or retired), which he happens to be. You take issue with that being the norm because it doesn't include a relatives field. That's not my problem. I didn't create that template or set the norm for it to be used across articles for Football players. Isjadd773 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't change the infobox on David Beckham's page because you wanted to follow the norm. You changed it (without a discussion of course) so that "there's no need for dispute about "relatives" on this particular article" (your words, not mine), yet again demonstrating that all your edits are connected and stem from your desire to eliminate "non-blood" relatives from infoboxes; and the infobox change was a way to circumvent that issue so that all articles can adhere to this imaginary norm that you have been talking about. I'm not going to engage any further and I'll leave it to the admins. Keivan.f^Talk 19:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This is amusing. You started a baseless ANI and now you're deflecting. Using the correct/standard infoxbox template for Football players on an article for a Football player isn't controversial. In doing I also to put an end to the dispute about inclusion of relatives on that particular article (which I stated in the edit summary as well). It's not advisable to jump the gun to take innocuous things to ANI. Good day. Isjadd773 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There was no dispute in inclusion of certain relatives until you started it. You failed to start a discussion to gain consensus for your edits, violated WP:STATUSQUO, and changed an infobox without a discussion. The fact that you find this amusing is concerning. Keivan.f^Talk 20:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

At most this just seems like a content dispute. BrandNewSaint (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes and thanks for the comment; but, I cannot engage in an endless edit war when the other user does not adhere to protocols, and (for example) waits for me to get to three reverts on a certain page to then push their own preferred version onto it. That is not a form of conduct that follows the good faith principle. Keivan.f^Talk 20:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, Keivan. It is, of course, a content dispute, but the other editor is intentionally bypassing a productive resolution to force their viewpoint. I think the large edit you linked to David Beckham's page is insane – they removed all information about his family and even his Order of the British Empire because those fields don't exist on the footballer infobox. (then why did you change it to the footballer infobox?!) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox templates are "fill in the blanks" editing aids. They can be modified and other parameters/fields added when appropriate. Their standard structures are not edicts handed down from on high. "Not part of the standard template" is not a valid reason to remove content. There may or may not be other valid reasons. Avoid edit wars at all costs, Isjadd773. Edit warring never ends well, and there are legitimate forms of dispute resolution available to you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It's more than "not part of the standard template" – the template used on the page hasn't been Infobox footballer for years (because his career has transcended sports and he is long retired). The editor manually changed the infobox type to footballer, and then removed tons of necessary information (the most egregious being the award he received) to suit their change. Not only should it probably not have been done in the first place, but it was done in such an egregiously lazy way. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Both David Beckham and Nicola Peltz articles should be reverted back to their original form before the whole debacle about the former's son disowning his family began. Ever since then we have had an IP and the user mentioned here attempting to delete the names of “in-laws” from the relatives section citing a so called “norm” that non-blood relatives are excluded from infoboxes. Not only is this ridiculous but a blatantly false statement as well. I can list a dozen pages here where stepparents and in-laws are listed in infoboxes. The issue here is WP:CIR because the user in question is unwilling to understand that what they call a “norm” does not even exist. Keivan.f^Talk 02:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to add a fourth voice of concordance here, even if I do find this to be something of a tempest in a teapot. Isjadd773, I agree that it feels like a bit of an abuse of process and a non-collaborative strategy to change the selection of infobox type in order to backstop and justify your apparent a priori motivation to remove that content. As to the broader issue of the blood relatives content in infoboxes generally, if you believe this content is inappropriate for some reason, I would suggest that before you engage in a uniform mass change across a number of BLPs, where that change might be controversial, that you first workshop the issue with other community members in an appropriate centralized space (probably in this instance the talk page of a relevant policy or MoS page) to try to create a rule of thumb and incorporate it into style/content guidance as a codified rule.

Though I must tell you also that in this instance, I would be surprised if consensus supported the change you have in mind: descriptions of familial relationships tend to be the type of thing the community regards through a WP:VNT lens, rather than adopting firm prescriptive and proscriptive rules about what a "real" family member consists of, according to the idiosyncratic criteria of our editors--regardless of whether those opinions are based in biological or legal criteria. In short, I'm not sure if it will be a fruitful use of your time to try to get agreement to this change, whatever the rules you are presently applying to choose where to remove reference to these non-genetic relatives. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

That said, Keivan, I also want to note that Isjadd is at least technically correct in one respect: they are not really edit warring where they are pursuing a parallel objective on another article before resolving it on the first one where you are debating the point. However, I do appreciate why you were frustrated and felt there was need to flag community involvement to try to force a meeting of the minds before the dispute sprawled across further articles. I would suggest that one of you should at this point be proactive and start an RfC at a relevant talk page; probably at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, for lack of a more precise option. Whatever the determination, it could lead to a new subsection of WP:INFOBOXUSE. Though I'd honestly be a little surprised if this had not come up before, so a first step might be to search the archives of both that talk page and WP:WikiProject Infoboxes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and as one last note, can I encourage you both to take down the temperature a tad and keep this all in perspective? I think that Keivan has the better end of the policy stick here, especially to the extent Itsjadd has suggested that the appropriate and only solution here is to get consensus for a change to Infobox Footballer; as Cullen and Aesurius have correctly detailed above, that's not how that works. But notwithstanding that fact, nor any of previous discussion that may have gotten you both to the current point of vexation, everybody seems to be coming at this with good faith intent, and there is a relatively straightforward dispute resolution path for this issue. So let's try to keep perspective and reel the tone of the discourse back to something a little less peevish and a little more collaborative. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I could not find anything in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes that would point to a discussion on including or omitting in-laws, step parents, or any sort of non-blood relative from the infobox. And to be honest, I really doubt such a discussion would even last more than 2 hours. Because the repercussions would be something along the lines of removing the name of Millie Bobby Brown's father-in-law from her article's infobox, or the name of Matthew Perry's stepfather, or Michael Reagan's adopted family. The truth is, a relationship is not exclusively defined by blood and probably hasn't been so throughout the entire human history. The exclusion of "non-blood" relatives in principle is not going to work. I would not be opposed to the user in question starting an RfC (though I doubt it will get anywhere). But they need to abide by WP:STATUSQUO and revert their edits which have already been challenged and questioned as Aesurias pointed out. And if they refuse to do it, then an admin or uninvolved editor should enforce the rules. Keivan.f^Talk 05:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to agree with your assessment of the definition of relatives. Or, more to the point for our purposes here, I think what is important is whether and how an RS defines those relationships. However rational certain editors may find particular frameworks for defining the boundaries of family in general, when it comes to the content of particular articles, we should not be applying those standards as a form of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but rather just treating the assessments of various RS at face value, without inquesting their methodologies, and by applying the normal WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION tests where sources diverge.

That said, I really think you need to save those arguments for the appropriate content spaces. And I do want to point out that nothing in WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO, or related WP:DR policies guarantees you that you can just sit on the longterm stable versions for articles and assert that nothing can change until your rhetorical opposition gains affirmative consensus to overturn that version if you object to a change. Yes, in the shortterm, seeking a new consensus is exactly what they are encouraged to do to break the deadlock. But just because you are arguing from a position aligning with the status quo version does not mean you can sit, king-of-the-hill style, on top of a given version of the content indefinitely, especially in cases where the margins are as small as two editors at crossviews with two other editors. It is incumbent upon both of you to engage in good faith to find a longterm solution, whether that is a compromise version, or bringing in additional perspectives for a firmer consensus, or (*gasp*) someone just being won over to the other perspective. Again, I think you have the better policy arguments here, but I get the impression you could both be doing better in your approach to resolving the dispute, if you want my honest assessment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not really about me being on a high horse and demanding that things be done my way. The issue is that now we are adapting a more flexible approach when it comes to adhering to this site's protocols and customs. There have been multiple times when I was the one trying to make a bold edit, but once my revision was reverted I did not sneak around and play mind games with my fellow editors to force my own "appropriate" version down their throats; instead I had to discuss the issue and if I couldn’t gain consensus I had to drop the stick. So now it's really disappointing that when it comes to me expecting the same thing from another user, I am being told that I should completely compromise and let their version stand for 2 days straight without a single experienced user interfering. Fine. I have gone ahead and removed "non-blood" relatives from the infobox just as the other user demanded. I want this discussion marked as closed and I want no interactions with the user in question going forward. Keivan.f^Talk 08:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, that is of course your prerogative, but I think it's an overreaction. Everyone here, myself included, has overwhelmingly taken your side on the principle of the dispute. The problem is, you seem to want firm and immediate administrative action, but none of Isjadd773's conduct with which you are frustrated violates any brightline editorial or behavioral rule such that I think any admin is likely to take action at this juncture. We've warned Isjadd that his edits are likely to be taken as controversial and that his approach to the dispute risks being taken as disruptive if he keeps up the present course. A couple of us have even indicated that he is likely wrong on the content issues, even though this is not really the space for that.

As I said before, I understand the source of your frustration, but nothing Isjadd has done (that has been presented here, anyway) warrants anything beyond the mild warnings given already. For the record, I do not think you are "getting on your high horse" and I thank you for your dedication to following WP:BRD scrupulously when you are the Bold. But at this point, you've both been pointed towards the appropriate dispute resolution process, down to the right place to file it, and that's what I'd recommend if you change your mind about disengaging. Though sticking to your decision on letting the matter go is also a completely valid and understandable choice too, and the ability to occasionally do that is, in my view, something that enhances an experienced Wikipedian's effectiveness and stamina as a content builder. Beyond that, I just don't think there is anything more to be said or done at this time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• A reminder that infoboxes are an Arbcom-designated contentious topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

SJ8689, WP:CIR issue

• SJ8689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been repeteadly readding disputed content (a composition bar in the "Status in legislature" field of the infobox) into Starmer ministry, without giving any explanation and despite multiple warnings and reminders that such edits explicitly go against current consensus.

Chronology of events:

• 21 Aug 2025: Consensus is reached at Template talk:Infobox government cabinet#RfC on composition bars in the infoboxes of cabinet articles, clearly stating that "Composition bars should not be included in the "Status in legislature" field of the infobox of articles for particular ministries and cabinets". I subsequently remove the composition bar in the Starmer ministry article (among others) that same day, clearly explaining how and why it is removed and linking to the aforementioned RfC (diff)
• 16 Sep 2025: The composition bar is re-added by an user unrelated to this report (diff). They gave no explanation, but I assume this was done in good faith, as there were many intermediate edits between 21 August and 16 September and it is highly likely the user did not know about the existence of the RfC.
• 22 Jan 2026: I learn about the readdition of the composition bar, prompting me to remove it again through a clearly-explained edit summary linking to the aforementioned RfC (diff).
• 23 Jan 2026: SJ8689 reinstates the bar through three edits, with no explanation or justification in any of their edit summaries (diff diff diff). I revert this readdition, providing the justification why and readding the link to the aforementioned RfC: it is clearly stated that this is explicitly against consensus (diff). I also note them on their own user talk page (diff), explaining the revert to them for the aforementioned reason (in case it needed clarification). This comment goes unresponded.
• 26 Jan 2026: SJ8689 reinstates the bar through another further three edits, again without explanation or justification (diff diff diff). My comment in their user talk page still goes unresponded.
• 28 Jan 2026 (today):
  • I notice the readdition of the composition bar and revert it, questioning whether SJ8689 has read any of the previous edit summaries, the linked RfC and/or the comment at their own talk page, as well as inquiring as to why no explanation or justification has been provided in any of their edits (diff). The same is repeated in their user talk page (diff). They are explicitly noted about WP:REVEXP (which states that "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting") as well as WP:CIR (particularly the point where it says that Wikipedia editors are expected to have "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus").
  • SJ8689's only response to all of the above is a new readdition of the composition bar, again without any explanation or justification behind it (diff). My comments at their own user talk page still go unresponded.

I would have wished not to fill this report, because looking at other of their edits I think SJ8689 does genuinely wish to improve the encyclopedia. However, this issue is particularly problematic because they are repeteadly failing to respond to any of the communication attempts that have been made to them, keeping going with their edits, ignoring the explanations presented to them and not even attempting to give a reason why they are so determined to go against consensus. CIR is raised here because, if they do not have the ability to properly communicate with others despite repeated attempts nor abide to existing consensus, then they simply do not have the required competence to edit Wikipedia. Impru20^talk 14:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The next step should be a block of User:SJ8689 from mainspace until such time as they agree to follow consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I was just about to warn the user for a similar case on House of Representatives (Netherlands), when I saw this request. The user has been ignoring the consensus on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Easteregg:_link_to_specific_cabinet_behind_"Government", without explanation. Dajasj (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I spotted a similar behaviour in other articles, such as:

• Anthony Albanese, where SJ8689 conducted an unexplained edit (diff), subsequently reverted by TarnishedPath under grounds of no explanation being provided (diff), only for them to repeat their unexplained edit (diff).
• Liz Truss, where SJ8689 conducted an unexplained edit (diff) that was subsequently reverted (by UndercoverClassicist), citing that "per previous discussions on Talk: consensus is not to include in infobox" (diff, and I confirmed this to be true at Talk:Liz Truss/Archive 2#Deputy PM in Infobox), only for SJ8689 to readd the contested edit without any explanation (diff).
• Rob Jetten, where they changed the article's picture without any explanation (diff), was reverted by Tristan Surtel noting that no reason was provided (diff), only for SJ8689 to repeat their contested edit without any explanation (diff).

And, within the framework of "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people" (a contentious topic):

• In United States House of Representatives, they removed a switcher template from the infobox without any explanation (diff), which was immediately readded by DerpyRainbow noting that "no reason provided for reversal" (diff), only for SJ8689 to repeat their edit (again without any justification, diff).
• In 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, one of their unexplained edits (diff) was reverted by TW929 noting that it was unsourced (diff), only for them to conduct a similar edit (diff) that was subsequently reverted for the same reason (it being unsourced, diff). Similar as previous in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: a first edit (diff) subsequently reverted as unsourced (diff), only for it to be readded again (diff), all of it without any justification or explanation.

And these are only some of the more recent I have checked. I must insist that, looking at their history, their edits do seem conducted out of genuine good faith (they are not of disruptive nature); it is their behaviour that proves disruptive by proving unable to engage in productive communication when addressed by other users, failing to hear the arguments that are explained to them, and repeteadly ignoring existing consensus.

I would tend to agree with EdJohnston that some sort of (at least, temporary) block from mainspace should be enforced until such time as they agree to follow consensus, to engage in discussion when engaged by other users and to provide explanations for their edits. Impru20^talk 09:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! DerpyRainbow (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

They're currently in a slow edit war, reverting reversions of their edits without any explanation. [16] Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Since disruption has continued and User:SJ8689 did not respond here after plenty of notice, I've gone ahead with the indef block from mainspace that I proposed above. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that SJ8689 will follow consensus in the future. The block still allows them to participate on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

editor making unsourced and pov edits

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

---

~2026-61369-3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been adding unsourced complaints regarding Subway Builder, after a 4th warning. They also falsified source information (changing the title of a source, "This addictive widly criticized game is like 'SimCity' but for transit nerds") in the last four of their edits. Additionally, they made similar edits a few hours earlier on a different TA, on the same IP. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, MetalBreaksAndBends. I've indeffed both the TA's and blocked their IP range for two weeks. Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Do you think that the page should be semi-protected for a bit? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Not atm, Chorchapu. I blocked the offender (probably just one person) as an alternative to semi; I wouldn't do belt and braces. But I'll keep an eye on it and see if any socks pop up. Please let me know — on my own page is fine — if I miss it. Bishonen | tålk 10:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC).

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

Request for administrative intervention in a chronic, year-long issue

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

---

I am writing this report to request: an indefinite block in mainspace for User:Lertaheiko for chronic addition of unsourced, cherry-picked, or improperly sourced content.

Since September of 2024 Lertaheiko has received warnings on his talk page from a variety of users concerning several different issues, the most pervasive of which – the addition of improperly sourced dates to biographies – is the focus of this report. The earliest warning given for adding unsourced dates appears to be February 2025. They also received a week long block for adding unsourced content in October 2025. Since that time, Lertaheiko has either introduced unsourced, cherry-picked sourced, or improperly synthesized dates in likely hundreds of ancient Egyptian biographies. The final straw for me is this edit in which Lertaheiko not only removes the sourced dates from one section of the article, but they then also replace sourced content from the reign parameter with an unsourced date attributed to Schneider (2006). I will provide a few exemplars of the issue, with certain details contained in footnotes:

In September 2025, Lertaheiko changed the provided dates on the biography for Iytjenu. The article had stated that Iytjenu had flourished in 2150 BC in prose and 2100 BC in the infobox. Instead of consulting the provided source, Lertaheiko decided to 'split the difference' and introduced a new date of 2125 BC in both places. They were reverted and provided a warning to stop adding unsourced content by User:Lone-078. They reverted their unsourced date back in and explained that It has 2 dates that contradict themselves, which apparently justified making a third one up instead. I provided a detailed explanation of the issue involved with that here, but to repeat the crux of it: Neither date is supported by Leprohon, and splitting the difference places the reign of Iytjenu outside of Leprohon's timeframe for the Eighth Dynasty altogether.

As a last ditch effort, I attempted to start a discussion on the ancient Egyptian project page concerning Lertaheiko's editing behaviours. This was motivated by the addition of unsourced dates to the biography of Sithathoriunet. I had asked for the source consulted for the date of death provided by Lertaheiko (see issue 2). The explanation that I received was: 'She died during the reign of Amenemhat III'. Needless to say that that does not explain where died c. 1825 BC comes from considering that Amenemhat III had a reign of between 45 and 48 years with estimates spanning from 1859 to 1773 BC. This is another instance of a fabricated date.

I will add to this a third exemplar that I found that had me genuinely stupified: Aat. In this edit, Lertaheiko provides a birth, a death, and even an accession date for Aat (queen). I will address each date separately, because I can show you how these dates are invented and also that they are invented. The death date is where this story begins. First, we have a source: Dodson & Hilton (2004). The content about Aat in this source is so short that I could repeat it here in full: Wife of Amenemhat III; buried under his pyramid at Dahshur – a false door, an offering table, funerary equipment and a sarcophagus being recoved. As you may imagine, that doesn't offer any explanation for most of the article, let alone the dates. For the first date, we must turn to Senusret III, for it is in this edit that we find our c. 1815 BC. According to Lertaheiko's personal chronology of Egyptian history, Amenemhat III died c. 1815 BC. It is Lertaheiko's assertion that Aat died at the same time as Amenemhat III and that is from where the death date originates. From here we can determine that the birth date of c. 1850 BC was calculated using the provided death date and the statement 'Aat was around 35 years old at her death'. This then leaves the tenure beginning in 1825 BC. That, I can only conclude was just fabricated by assuming that Aat married Amenemhat at age 25, because... reasons?

I think these should suffice to move an admin to block from mainspace until such time as Lertaheiko is able to demonstrate an ability to consult and cite sources properly. There are several more issues with Lertaheiko's editing approach, including an inability to seek consensus and a hopefully former issue of making stylistic changes.

Footnotes

Notes

If you want to peruse further, their talk page is replete with warnings about all of these issues from many other editors including editors in other topic areas. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would like to pre-emptively apologize for the length, I had about a dozen further examples in mind that I had considered presenting and I had thought that by using footnotes I'd be able to manage the length, but alas, even with just three this thread is very large. Equally, before I am asked, I never have and never will use an LLM to generate any comment on Wikipedia. I am just that tedious a writer and my punctuation style is literally vibes. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(your communication style doesn't sound anything like AI so no worries there) Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I also want to avoid canvassing or the perception there-of, but if requested I can notify several of the editors that have dealt with this issue and may be able to provide additional perspectives on the matter. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The deeper I dig the more I find. Here are a few more examples: This edit introduces 'c. 1991 - c. 1961 BC' dates for Amenemhat I's reign attributed to Schneider (2006). They do not come from Schneider, and the dates provided within that work are 'c. 1939–1910 BC'. That is half a century different. This edit introduces an unsourced date probably divined from the already unsourced dates that they'd added to Amenemhat I's article. This 'copy-edit' introduces more unsourced dates Strike-reason: The date was elsewhere in the article. It was moved. My apologies. but then even fucks up the meaning of other dates already present. Lertaheiko, 1894–1895 and 1913–1914 do not mean either/or, they mean across both years. The further I dig, the worse it gets. I didn't know the exact scale of this because I tend to track only those articles I am substantially involved in. I know HaniwaEnthusiast mentioned that these same issues have appeared in the ancient Mesopotamia topic space, but don't know anything about the topic to opine on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's a certain type of person who cannot abide the fact that dates in ancient history are necessarily imprecise, conjectural, or even entirely unknown, and seems to think that Wikipedia must give A Correct Date even when that requires making one up. There was a similar case with Roman articles back in 2024 – the editor in that case ended up indeffed. Lertaheiko has been repeatedly warned about inferring dates based on their own analysis since at least February last year, and has been blocked for this behaviour once already. This has been a problem for long enough: if after a year's worth of warnings and a block they are still doing it, then more stringent sanctions are indicated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is still on-going, admins. Just today we have this edit that introduces the dates 'c. 1808 BC - c. 1800 BC' cited to Jacques (1894), p. 94. Here look at the source for yourself. Those dates don't come from that page or that source. The citation is just copy-pasted from a later statement that says 'She was around 5-10 years old when she died' cited to that page – that alone should tell you that the dates can't be legitimate because it assumes that she was specifically 8 at the time of her death – but even that statement doesn't come from p. 94 as it isn't even the correct section of the source for anything to do with Nubheteptikhered which is pp. 107–117. So in this edit we have fabricated dates and a pseudo-citation. They will not stop, until they are stopped. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Lertaheiko (talk · contribs) to prevent editing articles until a suitable explanation is provided here. After numerous discussions, a recent diff shows no recognition of the problem—that diff gives precise years for a reign over 3,800 years ago with an unchanged footnote showing seven different year ranges from different reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is true. The dates I added were the ones listed in the 12th Dynasty of Egypt and the List of Pharohs article (Was changed recently by Tintero21). In addition, they match up with the date listed for Senusret III, his predecessor.

Note: Starting around 1860 BC, he was a co-regent under Senusret III for around 20 years before becoming king.

However, it was reverted. Mr rnddude claimed that I removed dates, and implied I made up dates. They might be talking about the Historical sources section, but I removed those as part of a cleanup of the article and to reduce clutter. To avoid an edit war, I made a compromise. Lertaheiko (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgenut#31 January 2026. Edgenut, the editor mentioned by @Caeciliusinhorto-public, retired blocked on 10 August 2024[17], the day before Lertaheiko's first edit. NebY (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard

Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This was not dealt with before it was archived.

The editor continues to add uncited information here and was just encouraged by User:7&6=thirteen to continue his behaviour. Llammakey (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Llammakey False. Untrue. I said that he should make constructive edits with citations and learn how to do it. We need more competent editors. Being put up for public shaming drives them away. The linked edit has nothing to do with me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into what you said or didn't say when it is there in black and white on their talk page. There have been multiple editors who have linked pages (including myself) where the editor in question can inform themselves. WP:COMPETENCE matters. There has been no engagement, no attempts to change, just the same old same old. I am trying to deal with this poor editor. They can be restricted to draft space where they can play around with editing tests all they want. If you want to go in and check everyone of this editor's edits and produce citations to help them along and correct any incorrect information, by all means, do that. But that has not been the case and I do not want to play cleanup everyday when I am trying to do my own work. Llammakey (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. Llammakey I hope you get your wish, and also that Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) learns to be competent and continues to contribute. The encyclopedia needs you both. I wish you both luck and continued good editing. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen How can you say you have no dog in the fight when you leave a message saying:

1. their edits are valuable and welcome, when their talk page is littered with issues; and

2. illegitimi non carborundum.

I wonder why you felt the need to encourage someone whose edits are repeatedly problematic and who has failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident. MmeMaigret (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no prohibition against adding uncited material to Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Of @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard’ 550 edits, almost none have edits summaries.

The only ones with edit summaries are the initial ones for the pages they created - each of which was PROD’d, AfD’d or moved to draftspace. Despite the previous ANI, which should have serve as a warning, they have continued in this vein. MmeMaigret (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a bad take. Communication is not optional, and when uncited additions are reverted the onus is on the one introducing the information to provide a source. And we should not be encouraging people to add unsourced information in mainspace. WP:V is a core policy and uncited material cannot be readily verified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Because I don't. I have only told User: Rms mauret1nia 2 1938 cunard to learn how to edit and persist in constructive editing. Including citations. We need to encourage new editors. But what you choose to do is beyond me.

P.S., You made a choice. You never left a message on my talk page, which is a requirement at WP:ANI; compare who has "failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident." I deny that.

Finally, the full context of all my edits to that talk page is available here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to encourage people rather than complain about them. In that spirit please lets not get into wikilawyering. The fact that you replied showed that you had seen this discussion, so there was no need to inform you. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC

Yes, I am aware of it.

Sorry, but I disagree.

However, WP:ANI is clear on this requirement. That MmeMaigret affirmatively chose to misstate about it to this agency shows its import. That I found it does not excuse MmeMaigret's conduct here.

I've provided MmeMaigret with notice of this discussion on her talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen Sorry I don't understand why you have tagged me. What is that that I have chosen to mistake about what? I don't even understand your comment. I mentioned you above on the 30th above on a different thread of this incident. Is that what you are referring to? Are you suggesting that I misquoted your comment on @Rms's talk page. MmeMaigret (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The above rules say: " When you start a discussion about an editor You must leave a notice on their talk page. A ping is not enough." [Emphasis original.]

You falsely wrote, and I quote: "failed to respond to anyone who has left a message on their talk page (including you) and, worse still, failed to respond to an ANI incident."

I tried to sugar coat this, but you want to know why you were given a notice. There you have it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen I wasn’t referring to you. My comment “failed to respond…” was about @Rms mauretania2 1938 cunard, who this ANI incident is about. MmeMaigret (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

MmeMaigret In that case, I stand corrected. I apologize for invoking ANI and notifying you about it.

Understand that in the context of your earlier comments that I understood that I was included.

But I will take this as your admission that this ANI is not about me at all, and that there was no need for me to respond (despite your earlier question).

Cheers. 00:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Warning from editor, harassment after participation in an arbitration enforcement discussion.

Glebushko0703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now left two message on my talk page following my participation in an arbitration enforcement directed against them here. The arbitration enforcement was closed, as it was apparently created by a sock (without my knowledge, but the points were all still very valid). Glebushko0703 has retaliated against my statement at the arbitration: first with a warning template to try to intimidate me, and secondly with a lengthy message telling me that This is your final warning... after I directly told them to stop. This is an ongoing issue with this user harassing a segment of Wikipedia editors and has a number of warnings, blocks and bans for similar behavior. I will not be harassed or intimidated for freely participating in discussions, which I have every right to do so. ExRat (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Did the arbcom not recently say that any editor of standing can refile invalid arbitration requests if there is valid evidence? There are editors of standing who disagree with the behavior of the complained editor, so there should be a valid case for an investigation into what really happened. ~2026-63592-1 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@ExRat: I'v contaced Gigman & recommended he apologize to you, for causing any stress. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not have time to read the full report before it was removed, but despite being written by a sock account, it did have valid points based on what I did see. The behaviour on display here is obviously not ok, and I am also not impressed by their recent activity on Talk:List of pro-Russian political parties where they have been failing to WP:AGF, argued to remove clearly relevant links while failing to provide any policy/guideline based arguments but instead their personal opinion, such as here going on a WP:SOAPBOX about these parties, singling out German far-right party AfD as a party that "just want good relationship with current Russian government to benefit their own country" (not a remotely WP:RS supported statement).

There's a history of disruption here and it seems to keep growing. TylerBurden (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

As a general rule, an Enforcement thread discovered to be filed by a sock is closed without prejudice to an editor in good standing filing a new thread with similar evidence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Apologies, but I am unaware if you are an administrator or not. If not, I would like the intervention of an administrator. A simple apology at this point is unacceptable to me. I don't know if you're his mentor or not, but you do a lot of running defense on their behalf. If you're an administrator, this discussion needs to go further, preferably with an administrator with less of a friendship bias with Glebushko0703. ExRat (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator or a mentor, but I have tried to help Gigman control his temper (i.e not post out of emotion). Had I been on-line & known that he had contacted you at the time, about your AE comments? I would've immediately told him to back off. Unfortunately, these events took place, while I was away. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I do appreciate your attempts on this. I wish he had been more willing to follow your advice. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid this, but since it is continuing against other users, I should note that the harassment against me continued for a day after the last thread a couple weeks ago was closed, despite their promise to stay away from me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Houndering suspicion. For some background (most of which can be found in that thread), they continually insinuated absurd things about me, in particular that I might be a sock puppet[18][19][20][21]. Then they edited one of my comments in an RFC "just for fun".[22] They were blocked from my talk page and told to stay away from me, after which they opened that thread accusing me of "houndering". That was closed with Glebushko0703 being told they were on "thin ice". One admin proposed they be banned indefinitely [23] another said If you can't get your conduct under control, an indef is likely."[24] One editor told them it's probably best that you drop the stick instantly and stay away from LordCollaboration and anything related to LordCollaboration for 72 hours at the minimum. Just edit something else, a completely different area for a few days (or weeks) to avoid LordCollaboration. And just pretend that LordCollaboration doesn't exist, so to speak.[25]

Glebushko0703 agreed to this, hence why it was closed; their responses included, I will strike this RFC and just avoid contact with the user.[26] and I will drop te stick and just ignore that user from now on then.[27]

Less than 12 hours later, with zero interaction from me, they edited my same comment in the RFC discussion, to collapse my table.[28] After I undid the collapse and told them to stop,[29] they instead started a discussion to collapse my table and said I "expressed [my] opposition in very perculiar matter".[30] At this point, I was preparing to re-open the ANI thread, but another user intervened and talked to them and they apologized and said they would take a week long wiki break. Then they somehow emailed me, asking me to strike my comments so that an admin didn't see it. I again almost made a report, but held off, since they seemed to be legitimately taking a break, and I was sick of this. After they returned, they have not commented on me as far as I am aware, (although they did comment to another user something that indicated to me that they felt they did nothing wrong with harassing me, "Be careful with your "mights" and suspicions, Ivanvector hates these words"[31]). LordCollaboration (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked. Anyway, let's take care of Glebushko0703's harassment here and now, as their messages to ExRat are unacceptable. Glebushko0703 is blocked for personal attacks or harassment (which they have form for, see [32]) for 72 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC).

  Should just be indeffed, clearly not fit for a collaborative project. 3 or 4 blocks for personal attacks and harassment over the course of 3 months, as well as a few for edit warring, is evidence enough. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Seconded. They've been given ample second chances, more than we typically would given that the case could be made that they were under duress via offsite harassment, but any clemency that would have bought them has been exhausted at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, unfortunately. They are still saying "Warns is the least I can do".[33] Same for my situation, where they don't seem to think they did anything wrong, they just (partially) backed off after two blocks, one threat of an indef, and after I said I was starting an ANI thread. There is no reason to expect this to stop. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  The account Hogopolo strikes me as a sock of Glebushko. All of the edits are restoring the reverted edits of Glebushko when they were blocked. Check carefully and you would notice it. ~2026-63386-0 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hogopolo's edits were on 22 October and 27 January; Gigman wasn't blocked either time from what I can see. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Using an undisclosed second account to restore one's disputed edits is sockpyppetry, regardless as to whether the master account was blocked at the time. In this case the results are Inconclusive due to proxy use.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at it, the claim All of the edits are restoring the reverted edits of Glebushko is false. The account has five edits; only the most recent one is reverting to a Glebushko version. All of the first four were edits to pages Glebushko had never previously edited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  However, every one of Hogopolo edits were to articles that were also edited by Glebushko, with Glebushko making/restoring the same edits as Hogopolo.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Glebushko0703 site ban

In the thread that LordCollaboration refers to above, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1212#Houndering suspicion, I proposed that Glebushko0703 should be banned from the site due to their ongoing harassment of LordCollaboration, their repeated insistence that they needed to call out Estonian editors for sockpuppetry despite having never produced a shred of evidence and after having been blocked for that near the end of December, and because their tendentious campaigning had led two administators to ban them from their talk pages, and they were now doing it on my talk page. See my post here for more background. I mentioned that I was ill at the time and wasn't going to monitor the discussion; I was shocked honestly when I logged in the next day and saw that voorts closed the whole thing as "withdrawn"; I did not withdraw, but was still too ill to follow up.

It's rather clear now that nothing will stop Glebushko's bizarre campaign against Estonians, evidenced by this most recent block for the same thing targeted at a different user. Therefore I propose again that they be banned from Wikipedia. And I will revert if someone closes this early again.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• I suggested an indef block above, but would frame my concerns as being primarily about a consistent pattern of personal attacks and otherwise less than civil engagement, rather than a bizarre campaign against Estonians. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: the complaint filed by Gigman was withdrawn. I shouldn't have closed the thread since you had proposed a CBAN. That was my mistake. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Ivanvector (and my comments above). LordCollaboration (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - A site ban is too harsh, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW - Gigman's implementing the 2025 RFC decision is not disruptive. His interactions with editors & observations of them in certain topic areas, is the problem. A modified t-ban for that situation, would be more appropriate, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support CBAN per comment above, prefer Rosguill's reasoning. They received their first 5 blocks (2 for WP:PA, 2 for edit warring, 1 for WP:DE) before the Estonia debacle, it doesn't mitigate for much Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support - clear-cut case of aggresive POV-pushing. sapphaline (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Glebushko0703 is rewriting history and is spearheading a coordinated campaign against Baltic nations. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  This should have nothing to do with that RfC and I do not see where we are even discussing the RfC with regards to the issues. Please consider amending this to focus on the above discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm kinda concerned about IP comments at this report & at ExRat's talkpage (kudos for ExRat ignoring the IP). There have been (over weeks) IPs reverting Gigman's implementation of said-RFC on Baltic bios, which Gigman has reversed. I'm not suggesting sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, but I think we should consider dismissing IP comments appearing in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Just for absolute clarity, I have nothing to do with any sock puppetry or meat puppetry even tangentially, and if anyone has any notion that I do, I happily welcome any sort of investigation. ExRat (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you're using puppets or working with any puppets. I'll defend you, if anybody does think that. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Nah. As GoodDay said, this has been something that has been going on for weeks now since the RfC ended. Just a number of anonymous editors who seem to not fully understand how Wikipedia works to my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It probably is a good idea to do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS any accusations of sockpuppetry need to be substantiated and you cannot discount comments based on these aspersions ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Still SUPPORT ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral. The behavior against LC and others is beyond the pale, and ordinarly I'd either support, or not become involved at all and simply close the discussion when it came to its end. However, the IP !vote abote illustrates what stays my hand. Gigman/Glebushko has been one of the primary editors helping to (for want of a better term) "enforce" the 'Baltic states infoboxes' RfC result; and there is an obvious campaign against it on WP:RGW grounds. Now, whether or not that campaign is coordinated is open to question (and some of the claims made that it is have been...mm...questionable), but I can't help but fear that banning Glebushko, no matter how justified when taken on its own, could wind up becoming a case of feeding the nabobs. I would support an outright interaction ban with LordCollaboration, and perhaps with ExRat as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  but I can't help but fear that banning Glebushko, no matter how justified when taken on its own, could wind up becoming a case of feeding the nabobs

  We can't control how people discuss us off-wiki; such discussions should just be ignored as inevitable noise, and they definitely shouldn't be acknowledged on-wiki, especially when deciding whether to block someone or not. sapphaline (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  No canvassing is not something that should be ignored, when reports about a certain user are published in state-media news[34], and reddit, because canvassing affects debates on-wiki. I wouldn't call this case as necessarily "coordinated" but rather describe it as publishing several highly visible reports with a lot of people who share the same opinion, and then ending those reports with an open-endedness along the lines of "now do with that information whatever you want". It's not "coordinated" in the classic sense, but more like throwing a bait into a hungry crowd who'll likely take the bait. Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  The nabobs are going to shoot their mouths off no matter what, because that's what they do -- we're seeing in American universities now exactly how far the right wing, for example, really meant their cries about censorship and cancel culture. If we suspend our conduct policies when it comes to "right-thinking" individuals, that's what will hand the aforementioned nabobs extra ammunition. Ravenswing 01:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment by block-evading sockpuppet — Newslinger talk 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• It is the fault of the "right wing" that Glebushko is being biased against Estonians as a whole?

  1

  I know of the type of schemes your community are in, but i'm still gathering more information and proof of what you are doing. I just want to let you know that it ain't right, the truth will be uncovered soon. Wikipedia is not a tool, it's an encyclopedia, and I'm willing to fight wih everything that is allowed to protect it. And please, don't threat me with a ban, the truth is on my side and you know it. Gigman (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  2

  And I don't have any so called "medding kids" unlike Estonians who make reddit posts for the sake of common goal. Gigman (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC) ~2026-66282-2 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• The December RFC initiated by Glebushko was flawed, as was its close. There are good reasons to "campaign" against it. – Chrisahn (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  There's no good reason to "campaign" against anything on Wikipedia, particularly against any RFC decision. It only creates tension. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I believe it is coordinated — see also this user's contribs:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silesianus ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  The current Russian campaign against the Baltics on Wikipedia is well known:

  https://balticsentinel.eu/8394326/wikipedia-s-baltic-battle-estonian-journalists-warn-of-coordinated-pro-soviet-edits-lithuania-reports-similar-targeting

  I'm not part of any coordinated movement, just appalled that Wikipedia is allowing this to continue. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Ivanvector's evidence. Failing that, there should be a topic ban from anything remotely connected with Russian attempts to destabilize European countries including poking Estonian editors. Johnuniq (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Glebushko0703 has been a persistently disruptive and combative editor for months. He has been blocked, topic banned and reprimanded numerous times for harassment and edit warring in just a few short months. He refuses to abide by warnings and even polite suggestions. He has been given more chances to amend his behavior than many editors. It is clear by his statements that he doesn't believe he is doing anything wrong. Enough is enough. ExRat (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, per IvanVector. -Mardus /talk 10:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Oppose site ban, support indef block. Extremely biased, aggressive, incapable of WP:AGF. The bias alone wouldn't justify a ban – we're all biased. But the user has been blocked many times and hasn't improved. Often suspects conspiracies, sock puppets etc. behind any opposing views and takes a combative stance. The behavior of this editor simply isn't compatible with a collaborative project, and it's unlikely to change. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I changed my !vote from "Support site ban" to "Oppose site ban, support indef block" after this message by the user. Sounds sincere. Maybe Glebushko can learn and change. In the message, Glebushko wrote "I need some rest and a break from Wikipedia, a long one". That's what an indef block and the WP:standard offer are. In light of the previous blocks, that seems appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Longer quote from the message by Glebushko:

Let this message serve as my lament for everything that happened. I feel sorry and I apologize to everyone I could've harmed or made upset, and for my disruptiveness, stuborness and overall donkey-like behaviour and cheeky comments. I don't want to re engage in any kind of discussions anymore, I just need this moment of my life to pass to become more restrained again. All I wish for now, is to save the ability to edit my own page and to lay down. I need some rest and a break from Wikipedia, a long one. But I do truly wish I could return someday, and if somehow I do, I promise it will be different and mature.

— Chrisahn (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Glebushko0703 was also apparently extremely sorry for his conduct and the multiple warnings he received for his interactions with LordCollaboration. Scroll up to LordCollaboration's statement and see how that turned out. ExRat (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. Because of stuff like that, I merely changed my !vote from ban to block. The message sounds sincere, but I think the user should take some time off. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment by block-evading sockpuppet — Newslinger talk 20:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: Glebushko is biased against Estonians as a whole. He believes Estonians to be schemers. His previous comments showed that. It is disappointing that admins have let him.

1

I know of the type of schemes your community are in, but i'm still gathering more information and proof of what you are doing. I just want to let you know that it ain't right, the truth will be uncovered soon. Wikipedia is not a tool, it's an encyclopedia, and I'm willing to fight wih everything that is allowed to protect it. And please, don't threat me with a ban, the truth is on my side and you know it. Gigman (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

2

And I don't have any so called "medding kids" unlike Estonians who make reddit posts for the sake of common goal. Gigman (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC) ~2026-66282-2 (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The first quote was posted on my talk page. I don't think Glebushko thought I was Estonian, and I don't think Glebushko is against Estonians in particular. It goes much further than that. Glebushko apparently sees conspiracies and enemies behind pretty much any opposing views, and often reacts very aggressively. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per comments posted by the IP above; Gigman is clearly on some sort of WP:RGW crusade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support from Arbcom, by ExRat: *Following the closing of the RFC:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles that they created, Glebushko0703 has threatened to create a Wiki article about a reporter named Ronald Liive of Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR, Estonian Public Broadcasting, referring to it was "Yellow Press") for reporting on the RFC for the sole purpose of harassing/irritating Mr. Liive: That Mr. Ronald Liive seems like a very active journalist, should we create a Wiki page about him? and That's why I think he won't oppose the creation of his own article on Wikipedia, but over there he will be listed as born in Estonian SSR unfortunately.
• Has proposed to User:GoodDay that they form a club called the "Wikipedia Anti-Nationalist Estonian Movement (WANEM)" to allegedly counteract socks and POV pushing and threating to edit war (dif1)

I don't think that this is an individual that should be editing Wikipedia based on these comments as well as their proven track record of disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour that have led to numerous temporary blocks during a short period of time, and I don't buy their sudden remorse given that they were more than happy to double down on their behaviour until it started being clear it would have the consequences of an indef block. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Full disclosure, Glebushko emailed me asking me to participate in this discussion (I can even share the email). I don't know if that counts as canvassing, but I see it as a cry for help. I agree with everyone else that the personal attacks and their overall behaviour is unacceptable. The block was deserved and so was this ANI report. I'd like to note that a lot of editors voting support for an indef ban have had content disputes with Glebushko and are on the opposite side of the Baltic biographies infobox debate, so this may be seen as an attempt to remove an editor with whom they disagree, especially cause that is being cited by some as the reason for the indef support. I also think The Bushranger makes a salient point about this encouraging battleground behaviour. That said, I agree with GoodDay that a siteban is too harsh (at the moment). Therefore I propose a TBAN from Baltic topics (very) broadly construed (below). I haven't looked too deeply into it, but as far as I can see, the problematic behaviour is contained in this topic area. Glebushko was also talked about on national television in Estonia. Perhaps that could have exasperated the situation. In any case, they need a (long) break from the topic. With a TBAN two things can happen: 1) if they are on Wikipedia only to edit about Baltic states, then the TBAN is essentially a CBAN; 2) they find other topics to edit. Either the problem lies with them or with the contentious topic, a TBAN would help determine which it is. The proposer of the indef, Ivanvector said "nothing will stop Glebushko's bizarre campaign against Estonians". But isn't that exactly what TBANs are for, to stop [disruptive behaviour] against [topic]? It has been said that they got their blocks before the Baltic debacle, but that isn't exactly true. Their very first block was 26 October 2025, after they've had disputes in the Baltic topic area.17:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC) TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  There were similar issues on "anti-Russian sentiment", with a block for edit warring there. And the most recent issue seems to have originated in "List of pro-Russian political parties". I think Russia and the former USSR are areas where they feel very strongly about, the Baltics are just part of that. An indefinite topic ban on Eastern Europe + the Baltics might be okay. The "advise" needs to be stronger as well (required, unless if an editor says otherwise), and perhaps a ban on talking about sock puppetry outside SPI. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  "May be seen as an attempt to remove an editor with whom they disagree", coming from you of all people, is rather funny. There are obviously massive issues with this editor aside from any kind of content dispute, so I think bringing this kind of argument into it is rather silly. TylerBurden (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I asked for a warning for you at AE, never did I ask for a ban or block. I recognise the behavioral issues with this editor (and I say as much in my comment). I just think the issues might be limited to the topic area and dispute, since the editor hasn't been blocked in their ~4 years of editing, until they got themselves into a dispute re: Baltics, when they received several blocks in a short period. If you and other editors think the TBAN should be expanded, I won't oppose it. I also proposed an indefinite TBAN, which means Glebushko would have to appeal it after 6+ months. Even upon successful appeal the restrictions should be removed gradually, i.e. TBAN for Baltic BLPs should remain for another six months, or something like that. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well I'm sure you would have mourned my loss. Either way it's not about me, you are speaking about the editor in question as if we're talking years of productive editing, the vast majority of their edits are from September 2025 onwards, before that the editing was sporadic and many of them are reverted. This is not a veteran editor but an editor that got involved in a contentious topic and evidently got in over their head, and decided that harassing people would be appropriate because they felt so wronged by people following actual Wikipedia policy. TylerBurden (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  an editor that got involved in a contentious topic and evidently got in over their head, and decided that harassing people would be appropriate because they felt so wronged by people following actual Wikipedia policy.

  I agree with your assessment. That's why I think they should be indefinitely banned from the topic area in question, and if the restrictions are eventually lifted they should be lifted gradually. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Glebushko has been given every opportunity to pull back from this. They have chosen not to. We have ways to deal with coordinated meatpuppetry and external agitators; Glebushko was instructed repeatedly on how to engage with these processes but repeatedly refused to do so, even after having been sanctioned multiple times. Wikipedia is not a platform for waging ideological wars, no matter if you think you are on the "right" side or not. This is a user who does not belong on Wikipedia, in any topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• TBAN from anything concerning Central/Eastern European politics, no CBAN, give rope. On talk page, Gigman posted this:
  Yes, I admit for the past few months I mostly edited Russia related articles and tried to highlight Russian point of view, because I feel like it's the one being neglected the most in the lights of current events, but I don't think everything about it is wrong or straight up lies
  With this attitude, any editing not only in the Baltic areas but in any Central/Eastern European topic having anything to do with Russia is going to get him in trouble. Obvious targets are stuff like Euromaidan and the Suwałki Gap. But there are less obvious examples, too. Kosovo may be impacted because Russia's media and govt often justifies their annexation of Crimea by referring to the so-called "Kosovo precedent". And it goes on.
  However, they seem to have repented, if under pressure, and I didn't see anything that would suggest them causing problems in areas like, I don't know, chemistry, entomology or transport. If they can edit biographies of sports people from Moldova without causing issues about stuff like Transnistria or Russian ethnicity, I think it will be better to retain them. If they want to edit articles about Canadian case law - great.
  But if issues persist, then CBAN may indeed be advisable. Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support I believe his behaviour is unacceptable - both the behaviour towards other users, and the quite bizzare rulebreaking edits to Estonian-related articles. Everyone has bias, but this user has shown they are unable to control it, and will get agressive when confronted. wojtekpolska^{₁₀₁₃ [talk page]} 20:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban; Conditional Support for an indefinite block: Given Glebushko0703's recent comments on their talk page, they do appear to might be sincere that they have messed up and have taken responsibility. Thus, I am opposed to a site ban. I have decided to support the TBAN below with extra conditions, but given that I am not convinced that there will be enough support for it, I am putting an indefinite ban block as my second preference here as I believe that Glebushko0703 should be given a second chance in such a situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have amended my earlier comment. The indefinite block in now my preference given the lack of support for a TBAN. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support Looking at some of the directed behaviour against editors, this behaviour is not acceptable for wikipedia editors. AT LEAST a site ban is warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. Failing that, an indefinite topic ban from all Baltic, Russia and Soviet Union related articles should be considered. - Neptuunium (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support. History of incivility and insincere apologies that isn't limited to the Baltic topic area. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, they can always learn from this, spend their time doing something else, and once they feel ready to treat others with respect they can appeal the ban, per WP:STANDARDOFFER. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support — At least for 6-12 months, but not opposed to an indef — Sadly, I must proffer my first-ever "support" opinion for an SBAN. The evidence provided by the opener speaks for itself. While getting into heated arguments and "spirited" (shall we say) debates are part and parcel to the Wikipedia experience, I would expect better from an apparently competent editor with thousands of edits and 5 years of "service". Perhaps they are apologetic, perhaps they aren't. We can't know. All we can know for certain is their behavior. It is easy to sit-back and call for moderation when you are not the victim of accusations, etc. Having recently dealt with an IP editor doing this, I have to say, it is surprisingly stressful (I say this as someone that has "seen the elephant") and deserves a strong response by the community, not simply some finger-wagging and promises that we'll "keep and eye on it" (to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of inaction). I won't comment on the Baltic state controversy (and related editing) as I don't know enough about it to opine and, frankly, while it may have served as a catalyst, I think we should focus more on "Gigman's" behavior(s). I strongly second TurboSuperA+'s contention that Gigman can — and perhaps should — appeal, in due course and with all appropriate contrition. I think Gigman could learn from this and I hope they do. I've said things on this site which I regret, but I have always either apologized and attempted to make it right (by acknowledging what I did incorrectly/what rules I violated and stating what I will do to improve myself/my behavior) or I have simply restrained myself. I have gone — as countless other editors have — 11, 12 years without any disciplinary action or proposals for such against me. Point being; It is possible to make a mistake but not allow it to snowball. I see an inability to refrain from such "snowballing", here, at least currently. (This is longer than I expected and I apologize to the closer for rambling-on) MWFwiki (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would expect better from an apparently competent editor with thousands of edits and 5 years of "service". They aren't actually that experienced if you check their contributions. They registered in 2021 but weren't active until 2023, and even then they were hardly active. Of their 2790 or so edits roughly 2000-2500 were made between October 2025 and January 2026. So their account is more like that of a 3-4-month-old newbie than a 5-year-old veteran. Nakonana (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  They made over 500 edits between August 2023 and February 2024. I would consider that active. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment by Glebushko0703 After seeing all my deeds from the side, inculding the old ones, I feel embarassed to say the least. Back then I've barely known what this site is about and how to behave on it. It is true that past few months was my most active usage of Wikipedia thanks to that Infobox RfC and follow up discussions, and I have gained a lot of knowledge because of it compared to my previous experice. It wasn't enough to prevent violations, but it was enough to change how I view Wikipedia. I had a habit of constantly testing the waters of what is and what is not allowed instead of reading the rules, that's the root cause of my problems with other editors. Now I understand that Wiki is not a place for cheeky jokes, vague implications, or gathering evidence on users who contradict your point of view. Instead, things here should be described neutrally, taken literally and with the consideration of others.

There is a part of primaraly non-wiki community that is motivated to keep me from editing because of that RfC they're dissatisfied with [35]. In the light of that, I doubt I will be able to return to editing, I don't think it will be allowed to happen if there's a voting. I know I don't deserve mercy after everything I did, but I ask for your understanding. I really wish I could return, but I also wish that the possibility of my returning wasn't under such a big question.

I have never experienced any long-term blocks before. The closest I get to that was a page ban that was lifted after few days. I should be punished, but I ask you to consider a compromise. TBAN will clearly not be appropriate in my case, but a 6-12 months duration block was mentioned above. I'm not trying to downplay my sentence, I just want to get my act together, learn the rules and come back, while having the ability to sleep at night. I don't know how to win your trust. Gigman (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding "vague implications" - Yesterday: "I'm not sure how relevant was that information, but I will not speculate about the intentions behind all this effort on behalf of @LordCollaboration".[36] LordCollaboration (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a part of primaraly non-wiki community that is motivated to keep me from editing because of that RfC they're dissatisfied with... As far as I can see, only one person in this conversation has come from outside of the Wikipedia community and had their comments stricken. This conversation is about your behavior. Please don't deflect from that. ExRat (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Suppport CBAN. His behavior is too harsh to continue making content. A long history of incivility makes him be eligible for a CBAN. Ahri Boy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: TBAN

Glebushko0703 is indefinitely topic banned from Baltic, Russia and Soviet Union topic areas, very broadly construed. They are not allowed to edit articles (and their respective talk pages) that are in any way related to Baltic states and those topic areas, their history or geography. They are not allowed to participate in RfCs or discussions about Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines or Manual of Style if those discussions are in any way related to the Baltic aforementioned topic areas. They are advised to stay away from editors with whom they've had content disputes in the topic areas. 19:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Conditional support - If necessary (a t-ban), I'd recomend it initially be for 1-month. If interaction with editors breaks down after that? then 2-months, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Way too lenient, I understand that you are on this editors talk page trying to mentor them and apparently vote similarly in RfC's, but we're talking serious misconduct that should lead to at the very least a topic ban. I think either would be a fair verdict in this case. TylerBurden (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

A gradual 1-month, then 2- months etc, would be best, no matter who the editor is & which side of a content dispute they're on. We must remember that such measures are to be preventative, not punitive. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In certain cases, sure, but not after several blocks in three months in the same topic area. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, aren't such blocks suppose to be gradual in length, when they're handed out? I mean 72 hrs, is the last one. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not a block, it's a topic ban. The editor can technically edit in the topic area, but they aren't allowed to. If they do, they risk an indefinite block, which an Administrator can apply unilaterally, without community discussion, iirc. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, but the t-ban should at least be modified. Gigman's implimenting consensus (via 2025 RFC), isn't disruptive. The problem is his interactions with editors in the topic area, which include commenting on editors in those topic areas. Therefore, a restriction on commenting on editors & their supposed motives, whould be more accurate. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is his interactions with editors in the topic area, which include commenting on editors in those topic areas. Therefore, a restriction on commenting on editors & their supposed motives, whould be more accurate.

That's not how it works. This is a collaborative project and civility is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Glebushko was already sanctioned for his behaviour towards others (blocked several times). Now we're discussing which steps to take to ensure it doesn't happen again. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I'm just one voice. It's out of my hands as to what the community decides, concerning Gigman. I've tried to help smooth his rough edges :( GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yea you're one voice not based on any kind of Wikipedia policy, but just being sympathetic to the reported editor, honestly it's not a good look. Then again any reasonable administrator would see the same. TylerBurden (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

A restriction on commenting wouldn't work. There's also been edit-warring and other aggressive behavior. Editing without commenting doesn't work, and the commenting would very likely devolve into aspersions, trolling and similar stuff again. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Like I say. I'm only one voice, here. It's up to the community. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, far too lenient for actions of this magnitude. ~2026-64380-6 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban (indef block and standard offer is appropriate), but if there is one, it should definitely include Russia and Soviet Union, broadly construed, and the Baltic countries, broadly construed. The editor is too emotionally invested in these subjects to consistently edit with a cool head. At least that's been the case in the last couple of months, and it's unlikely to change soon. We may reconsider in six months or so. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have now modified the proposal, per your and LordCollaboration's comments. I think I have said everything I have to say and won't comment any more unless someone pings me or asks me a question directly. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above (tied to this edit). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Conditional Support over an indefinite block: The conditions that I feel would be appropriate given the multiple incidents are an indefinite TBAN and a 12-month restriction on appealing the TBAN, with additional appeals requiring a 6-month restriction since a prior TBAN appeal. I believe that would be sufficient to deter future incidents and prevent those that have occurred from re-occurring. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Striking given that even the proposer of the TBAN is withdrawing, I don't see a path forward where a consensus for this will form over a site ban or an indefinite block. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, don't think it's appropriate to be stealth canvassed here by the person reported, and then make a more favourable proposal to them. Trout incoming Kowal2701 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was considering switching my vote to this (with some small caveats), but took a look at their edits to see if "the problematic behaviour is contained in this topic area". Unfortunately, it seems like this is effectively the *only* mainspace area they have edited since they became active again in late 2025. But they were also active from August 2023 to February 2024, where they overwhelmingly edited a different topic, WP:DOY. The behavior seems exactly the same. Almost immediately, they called another user an "asshole".[37] Then they got into a dispute with another user who was undoing unsourced additions by Gigman on the page December 25, which Gigman then edit warred over. Gigman told them to "add sources yourself", to "go to hell",[38] called them "either too lazy or incompetent", and said they "decided to cry like a little baby".[39] This got them a level 4im warning for personal attacks[40] and an edit warring warning[41] from another editor. Gigman denied any of this was a personal attack[42] and accused the other editor of provoking them into an edit war.[43] They then removed the other editor's post on a talk page (because it mentioned them),[44] which got them a warning for editing others' comments.[45] They then removed it two more times.[46][47] Finally, Gigman took it to that user's talk page and asked them to remove it, apologizing very nicely for their behavior.[48] The other user thanked Gigman for the apology and archived it. Shortly after, they got into another dispute with the same user on the page February 4 (over Gigman using "onthisday" to add material) after which Gigman removed the conversation on that user's talk page and told them to "touch some grass".[49] The other user said, "I took your first apology at face value, which I now realise was to my regret." Gigman responded again, "I just have a feeling you just like to undo, even more than your backyard."[50] And then responded to another user on their talk page, saying, "Seems like Undo must be his biggest contribution to this platform".[51] Gigman then got a warning for edit warring on the February 4 page.[52] Gigman went to that user's talk page and called them "the main sign of 'decline of this project'".[53] Finally, they said, "I want to say, that from now on, thanks to you and other of 'your type', since I only get revertions and warnings for trying to do something, I will never ever make any further contributions on Wikipedia, except undo the ones I see breaking the rules."[54] And then became mostly inactive until late 2025. This is all the same behavior and concerns - personal attacks, bad faith, removing comments, edit warring, accusations of being provoked, and returning to the same behavior after they get what they want following an apology. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Withdrawing/oppose proposal, per LordCollaboration's comment above. I thought Glebushko was being sincere and made mistakes recently, but it looks as though they're simply manipulative and lack the maturity to work collaboratively. The insincere apologies are particularly bad. I admit I did not look into their behaviour and took their remorse at face value.

TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As noted by others in this discussion, there is a very long history of extremely disruptive and uncivil behavior on Glebushko's behalf, that is frequently followed by what appears to sincere apologies when he feels as though he's going to encounter some sort of consequence for his actions. Those apologies seem to merely be a pattern of manipulation. This is evident in LordCollaboration's examples just above, his interactions with LordCollaboration himself, and with me via his talk page. ExRat (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: Moved a comment to a new section below. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

User talk page

Refactored by Sgv
Punish me if this is breaking the rules, but I created an account to inform someone that Glebu blanked his talk page, which seems to add that he was being insincere. [55] IHeartVideoGames (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@IHeartVideoGames: Users are allowed to blank their own talk page under WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN. There are certain things that cannot be removed. I am unsure if block warning can be blanked, but that would be might only concern that I can think of if they did erase it. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

"I am unsure if block warning can be blanked" That in particular is what caught my attention; in the future, other editors may not be aware of his past behavior from an immediate glance.

But I only wanted to bring this up since it seemed relevant to said user. Apologies if all of this counts as derailing. IHeartVideoGames (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Gigman is still blocked for another few hours & so hasn't yet responded at this ANI report on him. As for blanking his own talkpage? He has his own reasons. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as there isn't a problem after all, should this subtopic be collapsed or removed? IHeartVideoGames (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

We can leave this alone and let it get archived with the rest of this some time in the future. If anyone wants to collapse it or close it for whatever reason, then so be it. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally, any editor can check the edit history for a user's talk page and see if they blanked anything, so blanking isn't necessarily going to be good at hiding things.

In any case, while you do say below that there wasn't a problem, I do have time now and should mention that WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK explains what cannot be removed. (Of course it was a screen lower or two from what I saw on my phone.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

About a month ago, I happened to see LordCollaboration asking Glebushko to retract a threat to report them for sockpuppetry. This was the first time that I intervened to warn Glebushko to stop accusing others of sockpuppetry without evidence. They blanked my warning seven minutes later, and continued talking to LordCollaboration as though I had not warned them at all. Later, after they continued with their unsupported sockpuppetry accusations and I blocked them, they removed the block notice and an extended explanation I left, and for the duration of the block used their talk page to continue discussing a content dispute as though they were not blocked. I'm posting this to show that Glebushko has a history of removing scrutiny from their talk page, and I evidently am not the only one to have noticed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Korean Sword Vandalism, unsourced edits as well as use of multiple IPs

User: Adam0540 (talk · contribs)

This user and their two associated IPs (first and second) have been edit warring, they have been creating significant edits with no sourcing and despite repeated requests from two different editors to provide sourcing they have ignored all requests. None of their reverts address any of the concerns about lack of sourcing and they keep just saying what they are posting is "important information."

They have already broken the three revert rule multiple times now. I initially thought their current revert was a fourth revert but actually given that their first revert was at 18:19, 28 January 2026 they are on their fifth revert and continue to do so despite multiple warnings and requests. I tried to issue a warning to them but they reverted ahead of that warning and they haven't address that talk page comment despite their rather very rapid response time to revert other edits.

--Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

They are still ignoring my initial post on their talk page as well as the ANI discussion and they made more edits like here and here.

They provided "sources" but they did not provide URL links to any of their sources in their edits. I now know why because their sources do not say anything about the actual topics at hand. Here is one example. In their edit here they cite Turnbull's The Samurai Invasion of Korea 1592–98 pages 35-37. If you look here, I have the exact same source (exact same publisher too) and on pages 35-37 its completely dedicated to naval warfare and the Battle of Hansando. Nowhere does it back up their edits.

I initially imagined this IP/editor was acting in good faith/was unfamiliar and new to Wikipedia but the fake citations show they know what they're doing. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The relevant citations are already included and linked in the article. Adam0540 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not true at all, I just listed in my most recent comment that you made up fabrications with no backing to the truth. You added a source on Turnbull but your citation and cited pages say nothing about what you're talking about, its a section focused on naval warfare and the Battle of Hansando. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This person clearly has abandoned all pretense of trying to pretend to be a legitimate editor, they're using this new IP and are making edits (4 at the moment) and are ignoring other editors. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Those statements are fully supported with reliable citations. Why do you keep removing them? Please follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and stop deleting valuable information that is relevant to this page.

Instead of removing sourced content, please contribute constructively—help improve the wording, add better sources if needed, and build on the article rather than blanking it. Adam0540 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You know, using LLMs to formulate your responses doesn't inspire confidence that you're not using LLMs to make those edits. Now we have an idea why these citations you're throwing up are shooting blanks. Ravenswing 01:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adam0540 stop with your nonsensical statements, your sources clearly do not support the statements (I gave an example and I can give more). I think some of your citations are not even real based off what you're putting in. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

9 reverts by user in question and counting (if the TA proxies are included). Borgenland (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Still at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_sword&diff=prev&oldid=1335595611. @Adam0540, either drop the stick and walk away, or (probably) get blocked for disruptive editing. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

10R [56]. Borgenland (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of their edits appear to be LLM-generated, which helps explain the lack of correspondence between the text and the references. I've indeffed, as their talk-page response was also AI generated, and shows that they will continue on with incorrect information if allowed to continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked Adam0540 for 31 hours for edit-warring. No objection if another admin looks through this and decides to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t know if it’s grounds for TPA but their response post block [57] seems to reek of WP:IDNHT. Borgenland (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Seconding @Borgenland's point, I think they're going to just push their edits in again once the ban expires. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  See my comment above. AI hallucinations. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, they're using multiple IPs and are now focusing on the talk page. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

User still editing ECP caste area after warnings

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

SatyamevJ was already warned multiple times against editing ECP area regarding Indian caste related topics.[58][59] However, he is still continuing to edit this area and ignoring the warnings.[60] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• He is still not stopping it.[61] THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• For making it easier for others, this editor is an WP:SPA editing about the subject's connection with Jat caste. He is edit warring by misusing minor edit feature. Zalaraz (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zalaraz that SatyamevJ is bending the rules by marking large 5000-byte reverts as minor edits, for example this one at Natwar Singh. Reverts can be marked as minor if you are reverting vandalism, which this is not. You could also be asking yourself whether a person with only 33 edits such as SatyamevJ should be editing a contentious topic, but it would take some analysis to find out whether his changes are actually covered by WP:ARBIPA. If you think he is editing regarding the Jat caste, can you provide a diff? SatyamevJ asked for semiprotection on October 23 but an admin declined this, saying it was a content dispute. Certainly there is an absence of high-quality discussion on the talk page at Talk:Natwar Singh. When SatyamevJ reverts 5000 bytes at a time it is hard to know what the disagreement is actually about. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The article concerns the biography of a Jat community leader who was alleged to have engaged in a scam, because of which he was expelled from his political party. After that, he tried to join other political parties but was unsuccessful in the long run. He even wrote a book which was poorly received because of its evident bias.

His edits are simply glorifying the person and his caste by highlighting his purported royal origin.

SatyamevJ is suppressing all of that critical information about the subject while also breaching the rule that he should first get ECP before editing such content. Thanks Zalaraz (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hew Mun Weng

Hi all,

This user (Hew Mun Weng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) I am discussing about has been blocked once before for blanking stats tables without an explanation in edit summaries (see e.g.[62]). After that block, it seemed like this user is still doing it (e.g.[63]) despite advice being given on this talk page. I'm sure not all edits made are blanking stats tables, but this is certainly a repetitive issue which has resulted in the recent block. It doesn't happen very often though but I thought a review may be necessary in case I see something like this happen in the future. Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This user has a long history of disruptive edits, with plenty of warnings from multiple editors and previous blocks - and they have never changed or responded. I suggest a longer block. GiantSnowman 17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wider input here would be appreciated. GiantSnowman 12:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as someone completely oblivious to this topic, would you mind explaining to me why it is important to retain the rows with 0 appearances (and therefore 0 goals) in tables titled "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition" for past (i.e. non-current) seasons? If anything, removing them seems to improve the readability of the tables. Or are these "empty" rows somehow important for continuity? Thank you! Drake178 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's in the MOS, because if we exclude the parent rows for loans, then a situation where somebody signs for a club and is immediately loaned out would make it appear that they are on loan from the previous club i.e. misleading. GiantSnowman 19:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Found it. Personally, I'd recommend linking that page to the actual WP:MOS (as in putting it here, for example) to avoid the potential misinterpretation of that abbreviation. Also, for the record, in the second diff linked by the OP, the editor tried to work around the problem you note by leaving the first of the empty rows in place. Anyway, thank you for your time! Drake178 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Kevincook13

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

---

Kevincook13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is what is known as a mathematical crank: they hold some very peculiar ideas about mathematics (and infiniteness in particular), and all of their edits to Wikipedia rotate around those ideas in an obsessive way. The main effect of this is a sort of endless argumentation on talk-pages, interspersed with disruptiveedits to article space. It is hard to get a sense of this from individual diffs, but let me try.

This all starts with the article 0.999... in 2016; there is a WP:FRINGE view, totally rejected by mainstream mathematics, that this quantity is different from 1. Kevincook13's very first edit to Wikipedia was to add a link to their personal website disputing this view. This sparked discussions User_talk:Kevincook13#Recent_edit_to_0.999... and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_58#0.999..._Academic_and_common_sense_POV and User_talk:Sammy1339#Apparent_conflict_of_interest, all of which are worth reading to get a general sense of what interacting with Kevincook13 is like (I particularly like the last one and its bizarre accusation of a COI). After a long hiatus, they returned in 2025 at Talk:0.999.../Archive_20#Image where again someone had to close the discussion to get them to desist in the face of universal opposition. There was then another lull in disruption while they wrote the article Finiteness, which I have not investigated closely (maybe it's fine, their problem is with the notion of infinite things). The lull ended while they tried to get it moved into main-space; you can see their abuse of AfC editors here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_60#Reviewer_behavior.

Following the approval of the draft, we get to the modern phase of disruption, which begins with this [64] disruptive edit back on the subject of 0.999.... Here [65] we have subtle POV-pushing (according to this edit the sequence (3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, ...) of digits of pi is not a sequence because it is not finite) and here [66] we similarly have the idea that one can only refer to a recursive process, not the infinite sequence generated by that process. They then shifted to edit-warring the same POV about sequences [67] [68] [69] [70] [71], followed by incoherent changes [72] [73] [74] [75] to Set (mathematics) and Finite set, and most recently these [76] [77] bizarre edits to the disambiguation page Set. All of these have been accompanied by repetitive WP:1AM WP:BLUDGEONing, primarily at Talk:Sequence#What_is_a_sequence? and Talk:Set_(mathematics)#Writing_to_a_general_audience.

I don't know what the right sanction to request here is, but there has been a lot of mathematics editor time wasted trying to deal with Kevincook13 and I am quite sick and tired of it. --JBL (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Potentially relevant previous ANI discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  It does not appear that a p-block from mainspace would stop them from badgering @JayBeeEll and other math editors. Cook has shown no willingness to change their conduct toward their fellow editors, assuming bad faith at every step. I think we're unfortunately in indef territory. Star Mississippi 22:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Since article talk pages are a significant part of the problem, a simple article namespace block won't work. Some of their contributions are beneficial and @Kevincook13 did contribute one page: Finiteness, but in looking at the relative contributions there, it is @BD2412's contributions that changed it from a multiply rejected draft to an article--most of the meat of the article is not @Kevincook13's contributions.

  The only other thing I could think of is a word count restriction on article talk pages, say 500 words per topic, and no more than one topic created per month. Any thoughts on that? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  An indefinite block might be kinder to all concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  You're probably right. I was grasping at straws, trying to salvage them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Kevincook13 caused a great deal of disruption in April 2025 at the Articles for Creation talk page, and then in October 2025 at WP:ANI, by complaining that we did not accept his draft on Finiteness, and then by sealioning about why we did not accept his draft, and by accusing the AFC reviewers of treating him with contempt. The AFC reviewers were in agreement that he had been treated respectfully. After I had rejected his draft, and then changed my rejection to a decline, I offered to accept his draft subject to AFD. He did not accept that offer. I am not sure why. He then flounced off, and came back six months later to report the AFC reviewers to WP:ANI. If he is to be given credit for Finiteness, which was largely improved by BD2412, he should also be given discredit for being rude and demanding. I also note that most of his recent edits to articles have been reverted. My opinion as a computer scientist (and so a student of set theory) is that his edits to Set (mathematics) were properly reverted because they degraded the article. The links to both the AFC talk page discussion and the ANI discussion are shown above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Articles on topics too impossibly abstract to write about are my specialty. I will say that once I took over the writing on Finiteness, I did not get a sense of ownership or pushback or attempting to impose his own quirky views from this editor, though they did continue to work on the article. BD2412 T 04:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wisely or not, I want to give a little background on the underlying mathematical questions. It appears to me that Kevin's (I'm going to assume his name is Kevin and he uses the pronouns usually used by persons named Kevin) basic issue is that he rejects the notion of completed infinity. That is not in itself a crank position. It was probably the majority position well into the 19th century. These days it's a distinctly minority position but not entirely outside the Overton window.

The frustrating thing is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is even a position he's taking. His view appears to be that completed infinity is logically impossible, and that "completed" implies "finite" by virtue of its meaning. This is a position I am not familiar with among modern thinkers, and again, he doesn't even seem to frame it as a position; he simply suggests that words like "collection" automatically imply finiteness, and that we should organize our articles as though this were universally agreed upon. --Trovatore (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Trovatore. It doesn't change my opinion on whether he should be banned, but it explains how he got into this dark alley. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Site Ban of Kevincook13

I propose that User:Kevincook13 be site-banned from the English Wikipedia for a combination of talk page and project page disruption and attempts to edit in areas where they have less knowledge than they think that they have. A single-admin indefinite ban is too likely to clog up their user talk page with unblock requests.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support They demonstrate a poor understanding of the topic area, and have no edits outside of it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support I remember well the drama of this editor's Finiteness draft last year, in which that draft acted as the Gnostic Leviathan, ranging wide and consuming noticeboard souls every time the community didn't agree with this editor on something. I feel little has changed. I don't think a lighter sanction such as a topic ban from mathematics would be effective, since I think this editor's approach to community disagreement is the driver of the other problems. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose; I am not inclined to support a site ban when a lesser measure such as a topic ban or a ban on specific spaces could potentially achieve the same effect, while giving the editor the opportunity to better learn to work collegially, and to make improvements where still permitted. In practice, if an editor is irreparably fixated on a particular area and is prohibited from editing in that area, they will cease to edit entirely. I don't yet know what kind of editor Kevincook13 is in that regard. BD2412 T 04:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support Competence is required but has not been demonstrated. Hellbus (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support Reading over their editing history, it seems various standard but inconvenient definitions are conveniently changed to, trust me it's true. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Seems a little excessive. This editor is a bit frustrating to deal with but mostly at an emotional level; the actual disruption is manageable. I don't particularly like to see people banned just for having unusual views combined with an argumentation style that takes them for granted; I think that wide a net will catch people who probably ought to be able to contribute. Maybe try something else first? --Trovatore (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose a TBAN from mathematics would suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with a TBAN. And going straight to a siteban in a matter of 5 hours, without a response from them seems excessive.— Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Considering the various months-long gaps in their contribution history, waiting for a response might be futile. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support I am persuaded that this editor's approach to community disagreement is the driver of the other problems and so am inclined to think that lesser measures would be insufficient. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support This user has never been here to do anything other than fight over mathematics. A topic ban would either be equivalent to a site ban or cause more community time enforcing the ban. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support (as opener of the ANI discussion). Thanks to multiple people above for pointing out some more missing context, including some clarifications about the article Finiteness. My main hesitation in proposing something like this was the indication that they had one positive contribution, but in fact almost all of that article is not their work, and the smaller part that is theirs still has some embedded NPOV issues. So in the end I don't really see any advantage of preserving their editing privileges. --JBL (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. If the user is exclusively editing within this topic area, then a topic ban will be functionally equivalent to a site ban. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support site ban. His comments on the proper use of disambig pages lead me to believe that the disruption would follow him to any other topic he wasn't banned from. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Topic-Ban

Since some editors think that a site ban is excessive, I will offer the alternative proposal that User:Kevincook13 be topic-banned from mathematics, broadly construed.

• Weak Support as an alternative to site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support It is impossible to determine if they will be more productive in a different topic area; we should give the benefit of the doubt, since they have demonstrated a poor understanding of infinity and have not demonstrated a lack of understanding of anything else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support, clearly warranted based on the issues raised. BD2412 T 20:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I'm undecided on site ban as of now, but definitely, at the least, needs a tban from mathematics. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum necessary step. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support however it would need to be made clear to Cook how a topic ban works, that it's not just the articles & Talks, but badgering the editors as well. I think this will function as a site ban since it does not appear he's interested in editing anything else, but I'd like to see if he can be productive in another area. Star Mississippi 00:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I watched an editor who got topic banned from Iran- and Turkey-related topics repeatedly violate it and get indeffed. But if that user was from a Turkic-speaking country, then I have hope that they have other interests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support A mathematics tban is appropriate here. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support - give them some rope and a chance to work elsewhere for a bit. If they continue, further sanctions can be considered. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support (as opener of this ANI discussion) without any reservations. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support, noting that this should also include discussion pages. The only contribution in this area that people have identified as potentially positive is the initial draft of finiteness. But that initial draft was so far from usable as to demonstrate inadequate competence to contribute positively in this area. And the recent attempts at contribution to articles on sets and sequences are no better. I don't see any history of contributions to non-mathematical topics but maybe this will give him a chance to stop being distracted by King Charles' head. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support If the site block proposed above doesn't happen, I would support this as well. Hellbus (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Conam-san

Conam-san (talk · contribs) is undertaking a slow edit war at 2025–26 Super League (Indonesia). They are going against consensus established here and have readded the data removed by at least four other users. They have also ignored an edit-war warning on their talk page. Seasider53 (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep, added again a list which was removed per consensus. Kante4 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

They created a dedicated article for the data in question. Since redirected. Seasider53 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: Conam-san blanked this section; I revived it after being pinged by User:Orxenhorf. I don't have time to dive into the substance of the original issue regarding and have no involvement in the affected articles. DMacks (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing, WP:NPA and likely LTA/Sockpuppetry on Luma Operations (1912)

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

---

• Luma Operations (1912) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am bringing to your attention the persistent disruptive behavior of IP user ~2026-65860-1 (and likely related IPs) on the article Luma Operations (1912), involving severe WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, falsification of sources, and violations of WP:NPA. After I performed a major rewrite of the article to align it with academic consensus—citing the Military History Institute and specialist Robert Elsie to correct a previous non-neutral narrative—this IP began systematically reverting to a version based on unreliable portals, claiming that the serbian army was "destroyed" despite historical records confirming a successful conquest and occupation. When I engaged on the talk page to explain that Robert Elsie (The Tribes of Albania, p. 282-283) explicitly writes that Serbia "invaded and conquered" the region and "suppressed" the uprising with 20,000 troops, the IP doubled down, bizarrely claiming that "nowhere in his book he said specifically that he conquered," essentially arguing against the plain english text of the very source being cited. When confronted with the direct quotes proving his claims false, the IP resorted to ad hominem attacks, calling me a "nationalist serb"([78]) and complaining about the deletion of the article "Dibran Wars." It is crucial to note that "Dibran Wars" was recently deleted via a unanimous AfD decision (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dibran Wars (1912–1921)) because it was identified as a historical hoax and a content fork; the fact that this IP is aggressively defending a proven hoax while ignoring quoted academic texts on the Luma article raises serious concerns about WP:CIR (Competence is required) and suggests a pattern of pushing fantasy history over reliable scholarship. The IP's behavior—denying verified quotes, pushing WP:POV forks, and attacking editors who implement AfD outcomes—strongly resembles the modus operandi of the blocked user User:NormalguyfromUK, known for similar disruptions on albanian-serbian history topics. I request administrative intervention to stop this edit warring and personal abuse, as the user has demonstrated they are unwilling to engage with sources or adhere to basic civility.FranéRogoz (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Obvious sock and their proxy blocked. See two sections below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, and POV pushing by User ~2026-65860-1

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

---

• ~2026-65860-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am formally reporting this IP user ~2026-65860-1 for a severe violation of Wikipedia’s core policies regarding personal attacks based on ethnicity [79] (WP:NPA) and the casting of malicious aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS) against my character. Instead of engaging in a civil, source-based discussion, this user has resorted to blatant hounding and defamation by following me to another editor's talk page to label me a "nationalist Serb sock" who "wants to misinterpret history." These are not just insults; they are baseless, bad-faith accusations designed to poison the well and silence any editor who relies on academic, non-nationalist scholarship. My edits are strictly based on internationally recognized specialists like Robert Elsie, yet because these facts do not align with this user's preferred narrative, he has chosen to bypass scholarly debate in favor of ad hominem attacks. This behavior is a textbook example of disruptive editing (WP:DE) and harassment, where the user weaponizes accusations of "sockpuppetry" and "nationalism" to defend what have been proven to be historical hoaxes—most notably evidenced by his defense of the now-deleted "Dibran Wars" page. A user who cannot distinguish between academic citations and "nationalism," and who feels entitled to slander others across multiple talk pages to bypass consensus, is a clear liability to the project and should be restricted from further disruption. FranéRogoz (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-65860-1 (talk · contribs) seems like an obvious sockpuppet of ~2026-43717-2 (talk · contribs) and should be blocked. The master is probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

what ? Why should i be blocked ?? What did i do ? Show me if i did something wrong. And i dont know why you are tagging me just because i said to block this user @FranéRogoz??? Did you know what did he do ? I already asked to the administrators to block this person or to warning him for not changing results in wars battles etc without reliable sources. Me personally i showed the reliable sources i didnt do anything wrong i dont know why you got angry with me for no reason. ~2026-65860-1 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Obvious sock of NormalguyfromUK. We had bunch of his socks recently. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 21:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay prove it to me how i am a sock ? Give me any evidence because me personally i think you guys only support each other and attacking me that im the Sock for no reason.Read when i edited something i always showed the sources without lying i gave to the edit every sources and you stikl attacking me ??? So its your fault and there is no reason that i should get blocked its you who need to be blocked for accusing me for hating etc ~2026-65860-1 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

okay so i should be blocked because i attack people ? Where did i attack you ? I just say that you are changing the results of all albanian wars battles etc which they defeated serbs

Its interesting because

Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921)teoxsanti12

Koplik war

Luma operations 1912

All of them before it was said Albanian victory without albanian sources so why did you remove and change all of this results ? By claiming is yugoslav military victory ?

And i agree with you about Robert Elsie i didnt denied it but im saying that in Luma Operations 1912 is said to be temporary supressed not permanent.And yes you are a serb a hater which hate other ethnicities with no reason.

In Luma Operations 1912 for example why there is only serbian sources ? With not a single non serbian sources ?

Second in Albanian–Yugoslav border war (1921) why did you claim that it was yugoslav military victory when in non serbian sources clearly state that yugoslav army withdraw due to albanian resistance and pressure by international ?

In Koplik war until yesterday it was said Albanoam victory why you changed again by Yugoslav military victory ? Come on this is not a joke i am not here to attack other ethnicities and this other account i know that its you who wants to claim that i should be blocked for no reason. I showed yoi reliable sources in all of these battles and wars and you still saying to me to get blocked for no reason. So i didnt do anything wrong to get blocked is you who should be blocked ! Okay ? Im saying again you are showing only no reliable sources you are making and picking up a website and then boom its yugoslav military victory. I hope administrators will understand me ~2026-65860-1 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That reminds me, I need to go check on the laundry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like you found a misplaced sock. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we also block Special:Contributions/~2026-67965-7 and/or the underlying range? Thanks, Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Request for withdrawal of false accusations

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

---

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

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Bennett (medical missionary), Breamk said At least two of the wikipedia editors who have suggested Pat Bennett for deletion have disclosed that they have personal experiences and feelings towards the CMS and its missionaries. and The suggestion for deletion seems primarily initiated and argued by some(but not all) individuals who have described personal relationships and negative feelings towards the CMS organization. He acknowledged here these comments were about myself and Dclemens1971. I had not been involved in that deletion discussion at that point. He was referring to my reply on his talk page here where I again raised concerns about notability in multiple articles he and his students have created, and noted for the first time that they all seemed connected to a single organisation (CMS). I was attempting to raise a WP:COI concern, although in hindsight I could have been clearer about that, even as I noted my hesitancy given responses I have previously received. I have [80] asked the editor to explain and apologise for untruthfully saying that I had "disclosed" or "described" any "personal experiences or negative feelings". He has (politely, yes) [81] refused.

There is history here - I have raised concerns over a long time about numerous articles with questionable notability, poor sourcing, or non-independent sourcing by this editor and his students (as have others including PamD and Dclemens1971); and he has expressed frustration with what he calls people "policing" his work. I can see something of why he might feel this way, but I reject the way he has attempted to paint those concerned about non-notable articles and students wasting their time, and am disappointed there appears no openness to change. I acknowledge this latest interaction might seem minor, but I do not think it appropriate for an editor to make false statements about another editor's motives in a deletion discussion (nor to accuse me of having a Conflict of Interest because I questioned whether he had a conflict).

If others believe the best outcome here is for interactions between myself and this editor to cease, I am open to stepping away (an outcome he would no doubt be delighted by) if others are able to follow up the ongoing concerns, but I would like an administrator's perspective on the in/appropriateness of the statements made about me (and Dclemens1971) in the deletion discussion and best case, I would like a striking of those comments and an apology. Melcous (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Nothing here that's really actionable, but yes, to take Breamk's comments here, the first paragraph is illogical and deflective enough to verge upon the openly disingenuous, and the second is a fundamental misunderstanding of our conflict of interest guideline. I invite Breamk to consider that making further comments of that nature may be considered WP:ASPERSIONS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think Breamk is also misunderstanding others' critiques of the articles his students are writing. Notability requires coverage in independent sources. An organization sponsoring a person's work is obviously not independent for notability purposes. We wouldn't accept a biographical article on a person who's only ever been written about in their employer's newsletter. Same logic applies here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would have thought Breamk would have learnt a bit more about our requirements by now. I was expecting to see a new editor, but I was very surprised to find that they had been here for over ten years. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry in advance for a lengthy comment. There is an ongoing and repeated failure of WP:AGF here. Two years ago, after Melcous politely raised concerns and asked for clarity on how their students understand notability, Breamk responded It is a challenge sometimes to see the positive intent of the critics.... I hope you will be a positive contributor adn not get lumped with the critics in the students eyes. Melcous briefly (and again politely and directly) reiterated concerns, to which Breamk responded with Your tone gives the impression that you do not have positive intent in your page moves, deletions, reversions.... There are many positive, constructive editors on wikipedia who are able to give helpful and collaborative feedback to new editors; you have not been one of them....The language in your most recent reply on my talk page comes across as harassment.... Please try to demonstrate a positive intent and I will work to re-assume positive intent. Please work to give the impression of collaboration rather than accusation and haranguing.... Your moving the page twice and then immediately suggesting that it be deleted came across as rooted in malice. Your behavior on attacking that page has given a very negative impression of you and wikipedia editors to several people both inside the university and outside. I have apologized on your behalf. In this same lengthy comment, Breamk said they had asked WikiEd to remove student tags from articles to prevent you searching for them. I have also asked if there is a way to restrict your access to the class dashboard. Per WP:NOTTA, student articles are not to be held to any different standard of notability than anybody else's, and for Breamk to attempt to shield their students' work from normal scrutiny by new page reviewers is not in keeping with the best practices for student projects. Breamk also accused Melcous of cyberstalking for assessing articles created by their students for notability and repeated a bad-faith assumption that Melcous did not have positive intent.

  This continued this month with Breamk using similar language (Why tear down when you can build up? Consider your interpretation of notability and consider your role in positively building wikipedia) that implies doing new page review checks is not positive. Then Breamk cast a particularly unpleasant aspersion by saying that your and others policing of notability seems to primarily(but not exclusively) fall on medical missionaries who are female and people of color, whether this is inadvertent or intentional. (I had at this point engaged with three of the biographies from his class, two of white men and one of a white woman, so this injection of a racial angle is untrue.) Breamk continued: As you probably are aware, women and people of color are often not recognized in history.... I believe female missionaries and people of color are "worthy of notice". I understand by the pattern of policing, there are several wikipedia editors that may disagree. I prefer to err on the side of inclusivity over exclusivity.... Based on your message and the act of erasure for these women and people of color, I understand you and others may not agree. This is an aspersion of bias, a falsehood and an assumption of bad faith all rolled up into one. Aspersions can be cast in the politest of tones. Like Melcous, I also consider it unacceptable that Breamk misread two comments and then based on those misreadings made false statements in an AfD discussion. I've asked for an apology, not gotten one, and I don't believe it's within ANI's remit to force an WP:APOLOGY, but I hope Breamk will reflect on comments in this thread.

  What is actionable is that Breamk might not be the right person to teach students about how to engage on Wikipedia. I have concerns that Breamk is teaching their idiosyncratic misunderstanding of notability to students in a way that is designed to amplify conflict and hinder their students' experiences. Breamk insists that a mission agency that sponsors people professionally is independent, which I don't believe anyone who has commented here or on their talk page agrees with, and Breamk emphasizes There is no fixed number of sources required at WP:N while ignoring the line that immediately follows: multiple sources are generally expected. If students absorb this from Breamk, that might explain why their articles are often draftified or nominated for deletion. Furthermore, WikiEd instructors ought to be exemplars of Wikipedia's norms, and the repeated assumptions of bad faith and aspersions cast without apology even after being corrected, suggested that Breamk may not be the right person to instruct students in how to engage with this community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have the impression we tend to give Wiki Ed instructors a lot of grace, sometimes unreasonably so, but I have no intention of throwing editors like Melcous and Dclemens under the bus for such a purpose. Breamk's attacks and assumptions of bad faith as quoted above are disgraceful. I will accordingly block Breamk for 48 hours (a short block IMO) for personal attacks, baseless aspersions, and battleground editing. Perhaps we can now expect them to tell me my block comes across as rooted in malice. I don't care. (I have no intention of asking them to apologize, though. Forced apologies are both humiliating and worthless.) Bishonen | tålk 15:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC).

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

Revoke TPA of ~2025-37582-89

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

---

~2025-37582-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone revoke the talk page access of this blocked user? Here's why. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Taken care of. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

User:ILoveRichardSimmons persistent vandalism of recently deceased comedy actors' pages

I first encountered User:ILoveRichardSimmons last week when he blanked out almost all of the work I and some others had been doing on the recently deceased Floyd Vivino's page. This reversion was fixed by User:Ad Orientem.

Today, I noticed that ILRS blanked 6953 characters of key information from Catherine O'Hara's page. Her death was announced today.

According to User talk:ILoveRichardSimmons, this user has received ten (10) warnings (six level 4) this month for disruptive editing, ownership of articles, adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, vandalism and conflict of interest at Richard Simmons, Rebecca Shoichet, Blake Clark, Britt McKillip, Floyd Vivino and Catherine O'Hara with no explanation.

He has also made tendentious, unsourced and reverted edits at Tenacious D's page, Rose Marie McCoy, Sandrine Dixson-Declève and more

Other users who have given warnings include User:GregariousMadness, User:Waxworker, User:Augmented Seventh, User:Sugar Tax, and User:Loriendrew.

The user was blocked from editing entirely for 48 hours last week and is currently blocked by User:EvergreenFir from editing the page List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters.

I attempted to communicate with ILRS about why they blanked out the Floyd Vivino content, they replied with one sentence: I meant to revert it to insert the recent death template. They never replied again and received several more warnings since then.

Considering that this person is targeting pages of recently deceased comedy actors and shows like My Little Pony, I think it oculd be time to escalate to a broader topic ban of some sort. This is someone who is WP:NOTLISTENING. I fear this will end in something higher than a topic ban, but I will let others come to a consensus about that. Please discuss. Kire1975 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this has reached the point where graduated sanctions are appropriate, a topic ban from biographies of entertainers or recently deceased individuals or more broadly from BLPs would be a reasonable with the understanding that further violations could justify a longer sitewide block. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 05:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of whether something comes of this or not, I've just left a CTOP notice on their user talk for BLPs (which covers the recently deceased). The next time their behaviour is outside of community norms, please take it to WP:AE. TarnishedPath^talk 10:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion User:TarnishedPath, I have taken it to WP:AE. Never done that before, please contribute and/or make suggestions if you catch any error of mine. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I closed the enforcement request, as it is substantially similar to the current discussion, and because ILoveRichardSimmons has been indefinitely blocked from article space by rsjaffe per his comment below. There is more context in my explanation on Kire1975's user talk page. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I recently reported this user to WP:AIV due to their persistent disruptive editing. Copy and pasting from that report: This user has been vandalizing Discord (My Little Pony). They first nominated the article for speedy deletion, then after being told that the article passes GNG, did not show any indication that they understood the Wikipedia policies. A week later, they tried to blank the article with no explanation. They continued to make other edits removing the Wikilink to the article multiple times. –GM 11:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• There are, at the very least, some serious WP:CIR concerns here. The level of disruption at Catherine O'Hara is shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• This editor seems to be a cackler, loki-style. I have followed along with their editing, as I am studying to learn how this type of disruptive editing is currently being handled by the community and sundry sysops and administrative types. Following. Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Could you elaborate a litte bit on what "cackler, loki-style" means? Kire1975 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Basically think Loki as in the God of mischief. In other words, this editor is trolling and wasting our time, and laughing about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. Apologies for being less than clear. I was referring to perceived mischief, as described by RickinBaltimore. I first encountered the editor during his publication of hagiographic content on fitness guru Richard Simmons' article. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

ILRS has now made more edits. The first one I looked at changed Blake Clark's birthday to "February 32". This after being given a warning by User:Waxworker on January 17. Kire1975 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The editor also has a habit of editing a letter or a word and then quickly reverting themself for no legitimate reason. This has been done recently on Hey There Lonely Girl, My Name Is Earl, Once on Pepsi & Shirlie, and at least once on Call of the Cutie, the last one with the edit summary The second blank means her butt. Kire1975 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit summary and the unconstructive edits to Blake Clark are enough to conclude that ILRS is being disruptive, whether from competence issues or intentionally is not relevant. Blocked from mainspace, and hoping for some answers from them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've ensured this WP:GAMING will not lead to an automatic grant of extended-confirmed status. They are free to manually apply, once they meet the criteria going forward. This was done as a regular admin action. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Grey Clownfish

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

---

Hi, I've noticed that Grey Clownfish keeps repeatedly advocating for non-offending pedophiles to be excluded from Wikipedia:Child protection. See [82][83][84]. I wonder if that in itself is enough to fall under the broadly construed interpretation of the current policy. At the very least, it's disruptive to see this happen three times.

Please note that I have very strong feelings about the underlying subject matter as someone who was abused as a child, someone who interacted with Gapazoid on that very same talk page, and who was in the room when he brought a gun to WCNA. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Disclaimer, guess I'm not totally unbiased since I also have strong feelings about this matter. I just don't get why people keep wanting pedophiles to be allowed in the community. You say one hyphenated word, "anti-contact", and you're good to go and interact with the community, including those who are underage? What, we'll allow racists in as long as they promise not to hate crime someone? Also, why is this so relevant here? You can edit completely anonymously, including articles related to that subject matter. Is there a reason people feel the need to wave around the fact that they're a pedophile? jolielover♥talk 12:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

(ok, why did @Sugar Tax: remove Grey Clownfish's comment?) jolielover♥talk 12:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I think any users who are essentially just shamelessly admitting that they're a pedophile should be blocked on sight. There is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of abhorrent behaviour. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

What if they shamefully admit they're a pedophile? What if they have a userbox that says something like, "This user is, unfortunately, a pedophile. It is a source of deep shame for them."? Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not the point that I'm making here, and you know that. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm serious. A lot of pedophiles are ashamed of their attraction. I wonder if anyone would support adding an exemption to WP:CHILDPRO for self-hating pedophiles. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Racism is a belief system. Pedophilia is an attraction. World of difference.

Anti-contact pedophiles are not like racists who promise not to commit hate crimes. Anti-contact pedophiles reject the pro-contact ideology. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense whatsoever. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Adults who are attracted to prepubescents through no choice of their own, but believe that sexual activity between adults and children are wrong are not like people who support discrimination based on race, by choice, but promise not to commit hate crimes.

Adults who are attracted to prepubescents but believe that sexual activity between adults and children are wrong reject the ideology that says it's OK for adults to have sexual relations with children. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

According to Grey Clownfish's talk page, they created Draft:Childlover, now deleted for vandalism. I do NOT know what the contents were (or if they actually created it; I've experienced being credited for a draft I did not create), but it seems worth looking at considering their advocacy for non-offending pedophiles. jolielover♥talk 12:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It was a Wiktionary redirect to the definition of the term on that project. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Ignore my comment then. jolielover♥talk 12:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It was just a soft redirect to wiktionary:childlover. Ask an admin if you don't believe me. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right in the third paragraph of your user page. It's relevant to the issue of pedophiles. Grey Clownfish (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's relevant in the sense that people who struggle with that should seek professional help to cope with it. That said, the paragraph on my userpage was not really intended for people trying to change my moral stance on society at large because this is an encyclopedic project. Arguing about this all is rather pointless anyways because the child protection policy is not something that can be changed with ordinary consensus, the WMF has a role in that. It makes sense for a website not to risk children's safety, even if you don't think there's much of a risk involved. For the same reasons people would tell someone who struggles with those feelings to not live anywhere near a school, even if they've never offended. Do you have any intention to WP:DROPTHESTICK? You have 2,000 edits on the project, surely you could focus on literally anything else? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the policy puts kids in danger, actually. It presumes that someone admitting to being a pedophile is a red flag, that it means they might groom kids on Wikipedia. It is not so. It actually shows that they are a brave, honest and transparent person. Who would probably understand that they shouldn't groom kids. Those who would use Wikipedia to groom kids would probably not admit to being pedophiles. Criminals are sneaky.

This policy creates a false sense of security, and I think that's very dangerous indeed.

You can't argue that the moral issue of how to treat pedophiles isn't relevant because this is an encyclopedia. It is, because this policy exists. If an encyclopedia has immoral policies, morality becomes relevant. Grey Clownfish (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You're arguing about whether the policy best protects kids in society, but the policy WP:CHILDPROTECT is very clear. Whether the policy is for the best or not, per Ravenswing below, it's the policy, and it seems to be one set by WMF legal, which consensus cannot override. There's nothing to be gained by arguing this. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Clovermoss, in spades. Wikipedia regards the safety of children using the site as a key issue. Wikipedia does not tolerate inappropriate adult–child relationships. Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate for inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children or expressing support for known pedophile advocacy groups), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked and banned indefinitely. (Emphasis mine). This is the first paragraph of WP:CHP, and I just don't see any ambiguity in that policy, which I likewise agree is something the WMF would have some firm opinions about any group of editors changing. At any rate this discussion has no business at ANI. If Grey Clownfish has a burning desire to change the policy, they should take it to CHP's talk page. (Oh, wait. They already have. Multiple times.) Ravenswing 13:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

GC has now been blocked as an arbitrator action by Guerillero. Sugar Tax (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior by Tomm Luo

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

---

User:Tomm Luo is apparently a new editor (66 edits) who has a pattern of very aggressive edits since the account was created on Jan 17th. Almost all of his edits have been AfD, tags including UPE/COI and warning other editors. I have made suggestions for him to slow down, with warnings up to level 3 but he has not. He very recently posted an attack of another editor on both my talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemy Maalouf (company). (I have posted to have these checked and possibly removed as a violation.) At this stage some further eyes are needed on him, perhaps a cool-down block. Courtesy pings of User:Kavento and User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

Special:AbuseLog/42951845 makes me think Tomm Luo is a paid editor too, and that they're looking to tag and delete their competitors' articles. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I already have a disclaimer on my profile. The only page i was paid to edit is PixelMusica (company) and acknowledged receipt of compensation for that. This drafts Draft:Azam Vianney Mansha is not notable and i see no reason to publish it prematurely. I have recieved compensation for it and have refunded the client insisting the draft is not notable enough which is why it is sitting in draftspace (does that need a disclaimer too, i'm curious? I can add one if needed asap). It should sit in draftspace while enough sources emerge. Draft space is specifically designed for incubation. Apart from these, I have no COI to declare again. If a check user investigation is needed to clear the air, i’m comforatable with that. But this is targeted. 💀 Kavento ( talk · contribs ) 15:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The editor in question is raising at least reasonable concerns. I have been dealing with Kavento in relationship to the now-deleted articles Total Basketball, King Sis, and Elaine King, which struck me as editing that was promotional in nature and struck concerns that it was either paid editing or an attempt to build a portfolio for such editing in the future, rather than seeking to build an encyclopedia. Material was being added without source, the article on the organization Total Basketball had just two references, neither of which mentioned the organization (they did mention a book of the same title by a related person.) Whether paid or not, his efforts have wasted time of other editors. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but i don't see where you, in particular wasted your time. I helped expand this article to the core Elaine King, but even after all the expansion, notability persisted to substantiate. You, particularly reverted my edits claiming they were promotional, and i decided to send it to AFD for deletion (which it has been deleted as of today). On the AFD page, you did dropped a comment saying "...but the existence of such an article is a sign of notability" to which i argued '..If you're judging purely based on GNG, then those profiles do not satisfy that guideline.". I don't have COI with that, why else would i send it to AFD. King Sis on the other hand is my one my favorite upcoming artists, and i feel like the subject should be on Wikipedia. The page was AFD'd immediately after. I let the AFD do it due deligence. As I said, i freelance sometimes and will declare COI where i have it. Thank you Nat! 💀 Kavento ( talk · contribs ) 16:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

My time was wasted correcting edits that should not have been made, creating pages where the research needed for deletion was taking time from my day and editing efforts. When you say "I let the AFD do it due deligence", no, it's actually human editors spending time doing that diligence. Creating a page like PixelMusica (company) which doesn't have sources that get it anywhere near notability is wasting other editors' time for your explicit profit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Nat, I hear your concerns and I sincerely apologize for the time you and other editors have spent cleaning up the Wikipedia project, it must have been exhuasting if a veteran editor like you complain. I have updated my User Page to disclose all paid interests, including those currently in the Draft space. Thank you man! 💀 Kavento ( talk · contribs ) 16:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for outing after being warned. If they have private information they wish to communicate to ArbCom, they can do so by email. In the meantime, they need to show some comprehension of WP:OUTING before any unblock request can be considered. Acroterion (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Acroterion, you changed the visibility of some information posted here. On my talk page and at the AfD similar (I think) information has been redacted, but not hidden.Should those be hidden as well? Ldm1954 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I deleted the revisions, and it was then oversighted. I'll look for other instances. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE behaviour by Meta34552

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

---

Meta34552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After their draft of Sachin Lokapure, a non-notable inventor, was rejected for being non-notable (and also LLM-generated), Meta34552 levied personal attacks against @Pythoncoder:, who had rejected the draft. Diffs of personal attacks: [85] [86] [87] [88]

They continue to argue for the draft's inclusion ([89] [90]) even though the reasons for the rejection have been made clear to them many times ([91] [92] [93])

Recently they tagged two articles with Template:Notability and "Tag Meaning Fix" for no apparent reason and pasted an LLM draft decline notice into one of them. Diffs thereof: [94] [95] [96]
randFreeman 17:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have thus notified Meta34552: [97] randFreeman 17:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As an addition, it is highly likely that User:~2026-67549-1 is a TA of this account. I thought that was very obvious but it doesn't hurt to spell it out. guninvalid (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed. I see no value in having this person active here. SPA pushing non notable person, personal attacks, insufficient English skills to communicate clearly, disrupting on other pages out of apparent spite. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, personal attacks by Chanchu0518

Chanchu0518 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relatively new user who mostly makes edits related to the taxonomy of fossil reptiles (an area that is currently the subject of major scientific controversy) and has strong opinions about how their taxonomy should be presented, particularly in the taxoboxes of articles (which comprise the majority of their edits). I edit in the same topic area and have come into conflict with them over their attempts to insert their taxonomic views into articles. After previously attempting to interact with them assertively but collegially back in June last year [98], I sent them an edit warring notice in December over their edits to the Parareptilia taxobox [99] (A topic I made a post on the talkpage to try and resolve [100]). Chanchu0518 took this very personally and has since lashed out at me when I disagree with their edits. When I today I reverted an edit the Sauria article they made in May last year [101] (which I had previously disagreed with at the time), after discussing with another Wikiproject paleontology member on Discord, Chanchu reverted with the edit summary Please don't withdraw it again [102], and made an edit warring notice to my talkpage, despite the fact I reverted their edit over half a year later [103]

Chanchu0518 subsequently accused me of being a dictator [104], and [treating] science articles as their private property [105] despite the fact that I made a post the Tree of Life wikiproject talkpage to try to gain consensus on the issue. [106], where again somebody else has disagreed with Chanchu0518's position and nobody has supported them.

Chanchu0518 clearly has no interest in acting collegially, as their edit history shows that they are primarily interested in inserting their own views into articles and then reverting other users who disagree with them. I think they need at minimum a stern talking to by experienced users that they should not edit war their own views into articles when they have been contested, nor should they make clear personal attacks such as calling users "dictators". I would not oppose a topic ban from animal taxonomy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The subject matter is beyond me but I am glad they are not editing in a field I’m familiar with. I se User:Kiwi Rex has also.encountered this editor. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hemiaucheni retracts other people's edits very frequently; I don't understand why he can keep doing it.

But when I retracted his edits a few times, He immediately claimed that I had caused an editorial warChanchu0518 (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And As early as 2009, a paper supported the view that Weigeltisauridae belonged to Sauria, and I recall that a small number of other papers have also supported this view since then. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

A small number of other papers? I haven't looked in to this dispute, but Wikipedia goes with the mainstream view, i.e. what most researchers say, not a small number. And we disagree civilly, talking on the talk page, not edit-warring and insulting. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

He was the one who kept retracting many people's edits from other entries. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Bridger on this. Personally attacking other editors (even regular established ones) and edit warring are not the way to resolve situations like this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I really couldn't stand it Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Just like Weigeltisauridae,Although which has received support from only a few papers, what exactly is wrong with marking it with a question mark? Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Why can he accuse me of starting an edit war when I retract 5 items, but he retracts 50 items he also believes his actions are entirely reasonable. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

RichardBi0129 - pagemove disruption

RichardBi0129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was temporarily blocked from moving pages in November after a spate of disruptive moves. They did another pair of disruptive moves earlier this month, and then just did this with no discussion or rationale given. There was a brief discussion regarding a page split, but no consensus had been reached and this user did not participate in it.

This user has never attempted to discuss or explain anything (zero user talk or project talk edits, and the only article talk page edits are moves), and has never used an edit summary that wasn't a default one. Between the disruptive moves and refusal to communicate, they should be blocked indefinitely from moving pages. --Sable232 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from page/file moving with the right of appeal in three months. See the notice on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Are admins allowed to set a minimum appeal time for non-CTOP actions? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@ChildrenWillListen That's actually a very good question. I have seen it done and have, albeit rarely, set limits on block appeals though never longer than six months out of deference to WP:SO. That said, while WP:SO seems to suggest that some limits do exist, I can't find anything that explicitly allows admins to set a time limit on appeals absent consensus in a community based discussion. As I lean towards strict constructionism when it comes to conferred authority, I am inclined to say that no such authority exists. I will therefor strike that limitation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I was posting this in another thread but decided to add it here instead. They have started doing cut-and-paste page moves Still no further comment. A full block may be warranted at this point. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Diffs: ([107], [108], [109], [110]) TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive and unsourced editing by TA ~2025-33620-38

• ~2025-33620-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite receiving numerous warnings in November 2025, December 2025, and January 2026 (including a uw-unsourced4 warning on January 20, 2026 ([111]), this temporary account has not responded to any of the messages and continues to make unsourced and/or disruptive edits. Since that L4 warning on the 20th, in addition to the changes that I noticed, reverted ([112]), and added another level 4 warning for to their talk page ([113]), they had also had four other article edits reverted for similar reasons ([114] [115] [116] and [117]) that weren't paired with warning messages. (Disclosure: I had reported this as vandalism through AIV last night but was instructed to put it here instead.) Orxenhorf (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

They haven't edited for six days and their TA was created three months ago - could they be on a new TA by now? Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is a way behind the scenes to check IPs, persistent cookies, or something else to determine if they have or not. Digging through the revision history of Suniel Shetty, I suspect you may be correct though. A set of nearly identical changes has been repeated on that article by a series of temporary accounts.

• ~2025-34880-12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 29 November 2025 [118] and 15 January 2026 [119].
• ~2025-33620-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 5 December 2025 [120], 6 December 2025 [121], 10 January 2026 [122] & [123], 11 January 2026 [124], 18 January 2026 [125], and 19 January 2026 [126].
• ~2025-39154-14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 17 December 2025 [127], and 31 December 2025 [128].
• ~2026-40634-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 25 January 2026 [129].
• ~2026-61253-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 28 January 2026 [130].
• ~2026-68711-9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 31 January 2026 [131].

The repeated changing the birth name from "Sunil" to "Suniel", the middle initial to a name without removing the period, the addition of movie names, and sometimes altering the text "returned to Tamil films after 18 years" to say "36 years", or the Hindustan Times citation with the title "Exclusive: Suniel Shetty to play don in Welcome to the Jungle", from "to play don" to "to play Raja Chauhan", or a variation thereof, make me suspect these are all the same person. It looks like Fylindfotberserk and Waxworker have done the majority of the reverts on these edits, so I'm going to drop a notice on their talk pages to see if they have anything to add. Orxenhorf (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Orxenhorf To answer your question, yes, there is WP:TAIV, but that's not even needed here since it's literally the same edits being made every time. HurricaneZeta^C 03:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I may be forgetting their original ID, but this IP range has been editing disruptively a significant amount of time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Knowing the individual IP addresses is not likely to be helpful given they are editing with a mobile and mobiles are typically assigned dynamic IP addresses but even without seeing the IP addresses, I am satisfied that these TAs are the one individual. In the circumstances, if an article is being persistently disrupted, page protection would seem to be the way to go. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Noting (because I’ve just checked), there are a number of blocks in place but obviously they are largely ineffective because the individual is editing with a mobile that has, as I say, dynamic IP addressing assignments. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And following up on that, as the disruption to Suniel Shetty has been ongoing since November and the page came off three months protection in October, I have protected it for a further six months. Other articles may be disrupted by this individual and protection can be requested in the usual way. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5 Thank you very much. I just noticed you did them while I was writing up requests in a note pad. Orxenhorf (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

~2026-68711-9 is definitely the current in-use account. I just reverted edits similar to previous ones on Welcome (film series) ([132]), Dhamaal (film series) ([133]), Indra Kumar ([134]), and Raj & DK ([135]) that were made within the last few hours. Looks like several page protection requests are in my future. Orxenhorf (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ve given all of these some protection as well as blocking the ~2026-68711-9 account. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Info. Policy

User:Info. Policy repeatedly added unverifiable information to the article Benji the Hunted and resorted to personal attacks against me by calling me a liar and a jerk when I contradicted their claims on my talk page. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Final warning given. If such attacks are attempted again, please let me know or re-report here. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Threats of admin recall at ITNC

Joseph2302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Joseph2302 made on WP:ITN/C remarks accusing future administrators that could have posted the article January 2026 North American winter storm to In the News (ITN) of bias and threatening a recall petition. His comment constituted, in the first sentence, an aspersion that the administrator was biased. As pointed out in WP:ITNATA #1, Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. The second sentence is even worse; stating that he would initiate a admin recall petition against any admin that posted the story. It is also worth pointing out that, before making this comment, Joseph did not cast a !vote in the discussion, instead jumping straight to threats to get his way. WP:RECALL states that Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before the recall. Most importantly, this is straightforwardly an attempt at intimidation and a declaration of intent to abuse the already-fragile admin recall system.

Joseph's comment: Any admin that posts this is clearly supporting a bias at ITNC, as a similarly non notable event in any other country or region other than the US wouldn't get posted. I will initiate a recall petition on any admin that posts this. (link).

For transparency, I nominated the article for ITN. However, unlike Joseph, I strongly support the independence of administrators to conduct their jobs without being threatened into deciding one way. In fact, the threat seems to have worked; no admin action has been taken regarding the article despite the nomination being flagged for review and {{@ITNA}} being pinged twice.

Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC) with additions from Vanilla Wizard

To me, this looks like a blatant attempt at coercion to force admins into not posting. However, there doesn't seem to be a pattern of misconduct, so while it's possible that a topic ban is warranted if the community decides this was egregious enough, but a more likely result is a formal warning, with a ban only coming if he repeats this behavior. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In November 2023, Joseph2302 stated in an unblock request (for a partial block from ITN areas), "I do not intend to get involved with other ITN debates about e.g. whether ITN has US/UK bias, which were the sorts of topics that led to heated discussions and my original ban" (see request). Here we are, a bit over two years later, and Joseph2302 is not only opposing inclusion of a US item based on perceived bias, but threatening administrators with recall if they post it. This isn't just violating their oath in their unblock request. This is chucking it out a 100 story window and saying screw you to the community. Prior to this, in August 2022, Joseph2302 stated in another unblock request, "I have no issues with any groups of editors on here, and apologise for actions that say to the contrary, particularly against Americans" Yet, again, here we are with an attack on people who are perceived to favor American subjects. Also of note, the unblocking admin at that request referenced WP:LASTCHANCE. In 2015, Joseph2302 said "Thank you for unblocking me, I won't let you down." (diff) In the 10+ years since they said they wouldn't let us down they have been blocked for

• 36 hours in 2017.
• 1 week in 2018 which was changed to indefinite and then reduced to 2 weeks following a UTRS appeal.
• 1 month in 2018 and a week later the block was modified to remove talk page access.
• Indefinitely in 2019, which was successfully appealed 7 months later.
• Indefinitely again in 2022, which two weeks later was turned into an indefinite topic back from ITN topics with WP:LASTCHANCE being noted.

I'm left wondering how many times does trust have to be broken, how many last chances have to be given, how many times do they have to let us down, how many broken apologies have to be given, before we recognise this editor is not compatible with this project? The blocks aren't working. The WP:STANDARDOFFER return didn't work. The partial block from ITN didn't work. I'm not in favor of yet another block, even if indefinite. Every time an unblock is done, it fails. I thank them for the excellent work they have done on the project, but their egregious violations of community trust are too much. I am in favor of a WP:CBAN as the only option now. All the oaths and apologies ring hollow now. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Especially after reading the above history of previous offenses and broken pledges to reform, I strongly feel an immediate block is in order, and agree with Hammersoft that a WP:CBAN should be discussed, and hopefully enacted. (Full disclosure, I !voted to support the article’s listing as a blurb at ITN.) This editor’s threat, both disruptive and pernicious, in my view, strikes at the very core of Wikipedia’s mission of consensus building and the independence of administrators. Intended as a permanent in-house Wikipedia WP:CHILLING EFFECT, the community needs to act firmly as a preventative action to insure the perpetrator is promptly neutralized, and to send a message that this type of bullying will bring swift consequences. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• User blocked I have re-instated their indefinite partial block from ITN and related topics, as this behavior was in direct contravention of assurances made during their last unblock appeal. I did that rather than a full indef so that they can still respond here, and it's not intended to be a solution, or to prejudice a community decision below. Mfield (Oi!) 06:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Mfield you haven't blocked them from WP:ITNC though, only its talk page. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 08:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's an easy mistake to make using the blocking form. I've fixed it. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yep that was a slip when entering the page names, my bad Mfield (Oi!) 17:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• This is the second such threat (to use recall to intimidate admins into acting in a certain way) I've seen in a short space of time, and this absolutely has to stop. I'd suggest that threatening or actually starting a recall motion thus motivated should be expressly made a blockable offence. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  In this case, should it be an immediate blockable offense and if so, how long would each successive block last? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  @DoubleGrazing, can you point to the first recall intimidation against admin? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited: Special:Diff/1333978450 -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's necessary to make it a blockable offense - per this discussion, there's probably lots more reasons to block if someone does something like that, and I don't want people to be afraid to start legitimate petitions for that reason. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps amending admin recall with an oppose option, and requiring like 30% supports as well as the existing 25 signs. Or perhaps a counter petition process to prempt threats. Blocks for opening a bogus recall feels like it's ripe for abuse.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, opposes go in the RRFA, not the recall petition. The petition is merely a tool to see if a full discussion is required. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the list of recall petitions, most don't go to RRFA. We've only had one admin recall that led to an admin keeping their adminship, and that was withdrawn with 2 sigs. Perhaps requiring a certain number of uninvolved editors to also sign? I'm just coming up with ideas here.   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  You should have brought up the ideas at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in in October-December, then. The only charges that had some consensus were modifying the number of signatures and the length of time the petition was open, and those are being discussed in a follow-up RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall petition signature threshold and length. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, ok!   MetalBreaksAndBends   (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• On a slight tangent, I noticed that they created Barmonarch, a redirect to Barking, with the reasong "Gender neutral name, King --> Monarch". This does not seem to be a credible search term, and appears to be a bit pointy.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Certainly not credible, and certainly pointy. Can someone who knows how without having to look it up please nominate that for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've tagged the redirect with {{db-r3}}. Sugar Tax (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  ...and I see it's red now. Thanks. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is, but the item in question was posted. ~2026-69318-9 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC) — ~2026-69318-9 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Andrew5 (talk · contribs). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I apologise for overreacting on the discussion, and would strike my comment (but has been posted anyway and so has the "do not edit this discussion" banner. Whilst I don't think it's right to post it, I acknowledge that it was 100% wrong to threaten administrators over the matter. And I will not actually be initiating an admin recall over this matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I haven't formally supported the CBAN below, though I do think it's the only option. I haven't done so because I was hoping you would engage here. Thank you for doing so. Forgive me for being blunt, but how are we supposed to believe you? You told us you wouldn't get involved in ITN debate with regards to US/UK bias, yet you did anyway. You told us you wouldn't let us down [136]. Yet, you did anyway (at least six times). In 2022, you knew that contributing to WP:ITNC would be problematic for you yet since your partial block from that area was removed, you delved right into it anyway, making 459 edits to WP:ITNC anyway [137]. Why would you knowingly contribute to an area that causes you problems? You say you've contributed positively elsewhere, and you've not made errors elsewhere. How is WP:ITNC some dark magic that makes you go off the rails? In your 2023 unblock request [138] you said you were "avoiding areas in which I think I might get hot headed, which was the cause of the ITN block, and will continue to do so." Except, you didn't. From my chair, you keep on breaking assurances you wouldn't do 'x', you keep apologising and then mess up again, and you keep making unblock requests only to be blocked again. How is this time different? Please don't tell me that since you're partially blocked from ITN again, everything will be ok. It obviously wasn't last time, as you blatantly violated community trust. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

• Support as proposer. Joseph has been given many chances over the course of a decade to not edit disruptively at ITN and has shown themself to be incapable of doing so. I don't like that it has come to this but I echo Hammersoft's and Jusdafax's concerns of having ran out of options. The accusations of biasThe hounding of editors with regards to accusations of bias against North American and in particular US events has gone on for long enough now, and threatening admins is not something that goes down well here. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 06:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure mere "accusations" or discussions of potential bias at ITN is something actionable. ITN has had issues with Anglocentrism and in particular excessive focus on US stories in the past, and I think ITN has improved a lot in terms of posting stories from a diverse range of countries, in part because of those who raised concerns in a constructive way. What absolutely is actionable is engaging in threats and attempting to abuse process and prevent admins from posting the story to avoid being put through recall. AusLondonder (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support - Weaponizing a community process purely to get your way is a real red line for me. One should not get by extortion what they fail to get by persuasion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  If the consensus is not to support a community ban, the topic ban from ITN should be imposed/restored/reinstated. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think Mfield's action above was a unilateral reinstatement of the topic ban. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 08:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I did see that, but I think there's value in the community reaffirming it, and since it was apparently only the talk page, there's also value in making it more explicitly a full topic ban restoration. Though obviously unnecessary if the CBAN is supported. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  it was apparently only the talk page That was an error on Mfield's behalf; Black Kite has fixed it so that ITNC is actually know blocked. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support - I also agree with the observations by Hammersoft and Jusdafax regarding the user's history at ITN, especially since they've been given many chances to reform and this behavior has gone on for far too long. Threatening administrators, including those who are well-respected by the community, won't work well for this collaborative project. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • After reflecting on what's going on, especially following Joseph's apology for what he's done, I would like to consider changing my vote to Neutral. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Changing back to Support for either a community ban or at the very least a topic ban per other comments below. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Threatening anyone, much less admins who have enough on their plate already, just isn't on. This is a long-term problem and they've had enough chances over years. Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per everyone else. Enough is enough. Sugar Tax (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Reaffirming my support for a site ban here. A simple apology is not sufficient for an editor who's been doing this for so long. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support community ban as, even without the threats, Joseph's actions are a timesink and net negative. Acalamari 09:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Continuing to support a community ban for the same reason said above me by Sugar Tax. The apology didn't come across as sufficiently reflective and it lacked further steps to stop this behavior long term; without that, we'll be back here. Acalamari 08:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support a site ban for intimidation and other offenses. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sometimes good faith isn't enough. I acknowledge the sincerity of Joseph's apology. If this were their first episode of inappropriate posting and incivility, a topic-ban would be sufficient. This user means well, but is a net negative and has shown that they do not learn from their mistakes and excesses. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Long overdue. Intentionally and specifically attempting to chill official process actions by making preemptive threats is hostage taking behavior, and Joseph has long since worn out their AGF by violating their previous agreements. BusterD (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Someone has to say this: Joseph2302 has crossed a line. They have previously demonstrated they often break their agreements even after apology. In this instance, they chose to threaten the entire admin corps to influence a result. We Every wikipedian should take any such threat seriously. Joseph2302 expected sysops to be influenced in some way by their statement. Such chilling threats against good faith actions are never permissible. 1) Reiterating my strong support for CBAN. 2) As a result of the actions detailed above, Joseph2302 has sacrificed the community's trust, again. At the very minimum Joseph2302 should be indefinitely blocked from any discussion related to WP:Administrator recall. This is not about punishment; entirely about prevention. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• There may well be pro-American bias at ITN, but that would only be reflecting the bias of the world's news media. We can address problems without intimidation. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Yes, their comment might have been intimidation, and their behavior at ITN disruptive, but there are more targeted ways to address this, like a WP:TBAN from ITNC. ~2026-69318-9 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC) strike sock JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Joseph was TBANned from ITN as part of his unblock in 2019, and successfully appealed it. This isn't a first offence for Joseph. See the message by Hammersoft above. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• ::Still gonna weak oppose; their comment didn’t seem that overly egregious to warrant full exclusion from Wikipedia. ~2026-69318-9 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC) strike sock JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support - Should've been an indef on the fly, but whatever. Per all above. ^EF⁵ 12:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. For the malicious threats alone. Narky Blert (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly Support WP:Cban per all above CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 14:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support At this point, we're too many unblocks in. His last chance has been used up. At this point, especially with the recent intimidation, Joseph is a net negative to the project. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  After further reflection, this might be a bit too big of an escalation. Barring any further revelations, I'm moving to neutral. The ITN topic ban is definitely a must though. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose whilst I totally understand that my conduct at ITN was unacceptable, I still do not believe I am a net negative to the project like others have claimed. Whilst a temporary site wide block would be totally acceptable, I do want to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, and have done so most of the time in the last 11 years (although I totally accept that 99% positive edits and 1% poor is not good enough, and in particular, trying to manipulate processes was an idiotic decision that I fully regret). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Threatening admin recall in an attempt to win a content dispute would be appalling behaviour at the best of times, and doing so after making reassurances that similar behaviour would not occur in order to have a previous block lifted only makes it worse. Wikipedia doesn't need 'contributors' who make worthless promises and then carry on as before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joseph2302. Slightly over the top reaction to what seems to have been merely a case of typing before thinking. An apology has been proffered, and since no real harm has been done, and in the spirit of NONPUNITIVE, I suggest we accept it and move on. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose (on proportionality grounds). I agree that the conduct described above – threatening to weaponize recall in order to influence administrator action – was unacceptable, and that reinstating and formalising the ITN/ITNC topic ban is entirely appropriate. Where I differ is on escalation to a site-wide ban at this stage. While Joseph has a problematic history at ITN, this represents a single (albeit serious) lapse after a period without comparable disruption, and they have acknowledged the wrongdoing. In short I believe a restored ITN topic ban, coupled with a clear final warning, would adequately protect the project at this point while allowing Joseph to continue uncontroversial work elsewhere. (Disclosure: I was the admin who eventually posted the ITN item in question and was therefore the nominal target of the threat).  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per above. Joseph has shown that he cannot contribute collaboratively at ITN and beyond. A CBAN is definitely in order. (Note: I am the original nominator of the ITN item) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - A t-ban from ITN/ITNC will suffice. PS - Had the editor went on to attempt getting any administrator recalled for the reasons he stated? those recalls would never have past. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  25 signatures in a whole month in an incredibly low bar, and you'd be surprised how willing some ITN editors are to break the rules. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Eh ... even as an admin who regularly posts material at ITN (and was therefore one of the ones "threatened", even though no recall petition based on this would ever have passed), and even looking at that "impressive" block log, I still think Joseph2302 is a net positive to the encyclopedia as long as they never go anywhere near ITN. So, the topic ban would seem to be enough. I'm pretty sure that if this is adopted though, any more nonsense will be met with an indef that no-one will oppose. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  We don't deal with physical threats this way at all. We don't debate whether the punch would land. We take all such threats seriously. Merely threatening to take an admin to recall carries serious consequences for the threatened, the threatener, and the entire Wikimedia community which may reread this discussion in hindsight (and clearly see the mistake we chose to make, of minimizing such written threats). Once we accept these threats as casual conversation, every wikipedian will face them. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Once we accept these threats as casual conversation, every wikipedian will face them: not really, and admins threaten to block people all the time, deserving or not. Obviously, this sort of behavior should not be encouraged in the slightest, but banning someone over a single threat doesn't seem like the right move to me. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  This circumstance seems to violate sections 3.1 (threats) and 3.2 (psychological manipulation) of the Universal Code of Conduct. I'm reminding readers that ignoring the central feature of the title of this section (Threats of admin recall at ITNC) seems a proportionately less correct an outcome. This discussion has devolved (typically predictably) into whether we can trust this user sufficiently to let them make the same mistakes again. I think we've been having the wrong discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Instead of hand-waving towards the UCoC, may I suggest you go and file a case, see what they say; you may be correct. Or you may not be. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree this matter should be taken elsewhere. The discussion should be held and resolved here and now. The points BusterD makes above, including the clear violations of the UCoC, are extremely pertinent to the incident and lend additional material support to the calls for a CBAN. The issue of psychological manipulation are central to the self-evident need for this community to put a firm and permanent stop to this type of abusive behavior. An apology and repeat topic ban, in my view, won’t do. Jusdafax (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  No. Don't file a case with the U4C. They will only take a case about UCoC violations if "local processes" are not dealing with the UCoC issue. We, the English Wikipedia community, are responsible for enforcing the UCoC, as is our ArbCom. The U4C will not accept a case for the same reason as our ArbCom will not accept this case, which is that it should be handled by the community. We, the community, are responsible for enforcing the UCoC. I think that there is agreement that Joseph has violated the UCoC. The question is what sanction should be imposed by us, not who should take the action. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Robert asked me to weigh in about the UCoC/U4C of this all. For those who don't know I am a member of the U4C; I speak here only for myself and have not consulted any other U4C member in writing this reply. It's expected that UCoC enforcement happen locally - at places like ANI - for all communities. Further for communities like ours which have an ArbCom, the U4C cannot hear a case unless there has been a systemic failure by ArbCom. The only other exceptions are that ArbCom could ask the U4C to issue a formal clarification/interpretation or could, in theory, ask the U4C to hear a case, but those doesn't really apply here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I don't think it really works that way, like at all. PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it's not a physical threat (if it had been I would have indeffed them myself on the spot), and it's not a serious threat either, since it would never have had any chance of passing (as I'm sure Joseph knew). I can see that people are looking at that block log and thinking "enough is enough" but as Amakuru (another admin who works on ITN) says above, I am not sure that such an escalation to a CBAN is necessary at this time. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  We've had this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall/Archive_4#Threatening_an_admin_with_recall_petition. The very last link was to a comment by sysop User:Stifle which has stuck with me I very, very occasionally pop into AE to see if I can help, and tend to get scared away almost instantly. Since the enactment of admin recall, I wouldn't touch it. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the debate, I would find it very difficult to enforce any remedies in this prospective case for fear of being recalled by the party I ruled against, unless ArbCom were to somehow implement an exemption from recall based on AE activity. Chilling effect is a real thing. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  AE is a different thing completely, and I quite understand why some admins have backed away from it. This, however, is not that. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  This thing, unfortunately, is how that thing got started. The abuse taken isn't worth the work done. It's a serious issue at AE, and even you quite understand a fine sysop's reluctance. But not enough of us are willing to stomp this (nakedly) manipulative sh#t out when it starts (yet again). BusterD (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Seeing as they stopped editing AE in 2023, with most of theirs being 2010, I don't think it really made that much difference.[139] PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Like I said, I tend to get scared away almost instantly. End sentence. New sentence: Since the enactment of admin recall, I wouldn't touch it.

  The statement I made is a microcosm and an example. This is another. Recall scares good admins away from necessary but controversial actions. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose C-Ban as over the top, and instead support a T-ban as suggested by e.g. GoodDay above. GiantSnowman 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the comment was certainly inappropriate, it’s not worthy of a site ban at this point and the t-ban from ITN should be sufficient. Jessintime (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
  • In light of some of the comments below, particularly from Vanilla Wizard, I now support a community ban. While I don't think threatening to take someone to recall is worse than say threatening to haul someone to ANI or to block them, the repeated conduct is a problem and has not been addressed despite assurances it would be. Jessintime (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per BK and Amakuru, endorse the TBAN from ITN instead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Hammersoft’s analysis of this user’s lengthy list of previous blocks and bans, none of which have been effective on the user’s behavior. BusterD points out above that “chilling effect is a real thing,” and as I approach my third decade of editing Wikipedia, I have to agree. Serious damage has been done here. The apology rings hollow, in my view, and the apology only comes after another ITN topic ban and a number of editors asking for a community ban. Given a substantial number of broken promises, I feel community patience with this form of thuggery needs to end. Jusdafax (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support CBAN; i am frequently not in favour of such community-based actions in preference to single admin ones, but i cannot but feel that threatening (even if an "apology" was subsequently given) the entire admin corps in advance were they to do something is a leap across the line and must not be permitted ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban feels like an over reaction. A topic ban from ITN would suffice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Even if the behavior was "only at ITN", and even if "an apology was given", that doesn't change the fact that an explict conduct threat was made, and we can only assume there was every intention to follow through. That is entirely unacceptable, and a good track record elsewhere on the project doesn't change that. There's a saying in some parts of the American south that, boiled down, amounts to: "the fact you only put dog poop in one brownie doesn't make the rest of the brownies you made okay". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose a full ban as an overreaction, but support topic ban per the above. —Ingenuity (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per the others above. An indef tban from ITN, without chance of appeal, is the more appropriate sanction. Some1 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Amakuru. This is not proportionate at all, and seems like an alarming overreaction. The first comment in this section mentions Joseph's history of "bias against North American and in particular US events" as if he had an inherently disruptive viewpoint which needs to be dealt with. Many non-US editors would consider his viewpoint regarding ITN/C to be very reasonable indeed. Effy Midwinter (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - Threatening to take someone to a drama board is obviously not CBAN worthy, being against an admin makes no difference. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Way to diminish the incident… a threat to recall any admin doing a legitimate admin action is hardly “someone to a drama board.” Your oppose appears to me to be a possibly deliberate mischaracterization of an incident many here to find to be worthy of a CBAN, especially given the numerous previous sanctions. Suggest you strike. Jusdafax (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Dont be silly, I diminish it because it should be diminished as nonsense. No mischaracterization, the recall board is just another drama board but for admins. I would be open to CBAN given the block log and other stuff, but it was brought up specifically around the threat of recall. Now, looking at your comment, just misrepresenting my arguments and all that, you might be the one would should be striking their absurd accusations. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but there's a difference between "if you don't stop misbehaving I'll take you to ANI" which may or may not be valid, and "I'll start an ANI thread against anyone who closes this discussion in a way I disagree with" which is basically never acceptable. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion they are not that different. It would be similar to saying the next person I see edit warring I'm going to take to WP:AN3. PackMecEng (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, mostly to avoid the chilling effect of editors bringing up recall being banned. Yes, the conduct was absolutely sub-par, and threatening recall to have your way isn't ideal, but a site ban isn't proportional. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support if this was Joseph2302's first offense, then I would not support. But he has been banned and unbanned multiple times over the past 10 years so this is the final straw. Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN The behaviour was totally unacceptable and a long-term topic ban from ITN is clearly justified. However, the proposer here says Joseph has been given many chances over the course of a decade to not edit disruptively at ITN and has shown themself to be incapable of doing so which seems like a coherent case for a preventative topic ban from ITN, not a punitive community ban. Additionally, the proposer says The accusations of bias against North American and in particular US events has gone on for long enough now which appears a punitive attempt to remove legitimate viewpoints or treat them as an inherently disruptive problem to be dealt with. Gone on for long enough now - as if there's a limit to how long different views should be tolerated. Why would this even form part of the rationale here? It hints at ulterior motives to punish, rather than prevent. (For clarity, ITN has had issues with geographic bias in the past although I believe this has improved a lot in recent times and I think Joseph was wrong to claim the story would only have been posted if it was from the U.S. as the most recent natural disaster we posted was from Chile, with significantly fewer casualties AusLondonder (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Regretful support. I would have strongly opposed a CBAN or indef if this were a one-off, or if this were exclusively limited to ITN. Before I knew he had a long history of indefs and TBANs, my first instinct was going to be to suggest a temporary TBAN. And if it weren't for the threats, if his only behavioral issue were that he feels ITN is too biased towards posting stories relating to major countries, I'd be reluctant to even support that as comments along the lines of "ITN is too biased for/against large/small countries" are par for the course and not inherently disruptive (though they certainly can be, as this obviously was). But it seems his issue isn't that he's too quick to decry bias at ITN, it's that he himself seems to have strong enough feelings about the US that the thought of seeing a blurb relating to it makes him irrationally upset, or as he put it in his last appeal, too "hotheaded". His second & most recent indefinite block was for disruption, and general inability to collaborate with the community. See the comment "No American English on my talk page" as an example, and his appeal involved apologies to Americans and users of US English. If he just had a generally negative view of the state of the US, that would be perfectly fine, most Americans probably feel the same way. But "don't use American English on my talk page" followed by "if you post this US story it'll be the last blurb you ever post because I'm coming for your mop" is a disruptive level of anti-American bias that's incompatible with working collaboratively.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I should add that the most persuasive comment to me was from User:Yamla six years ago, written in response to a block for vandalism, not for ITN behavior, and written prior to his most recent indef-turned-TBAN:

  Joseph2302 has repeatedly promised to cease disruptive editing, and has repeatedly broken that promise. I asked back in December 2019 what was different this time. I don't need to know the specifics. If they were mental health issues, those can be challenging. If they were personal life issues, those can be challenging. My point is, Joseph has repeatedly promised this was it, he's done with disruptive edits, only to break the promise. What's different this time? This user has been given numerous previous opportunities and thrown them away. What's different this time? I can imagine a number of good reasons why this time is different, but really, Joseph needs to tell us what's different. He's an editor who makes constructive contributions and would be valuable for the project, but not at the cost of the punctuated significant disruption. I hope to see him back, I hope to see a good answer here --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020

  I share that sentiment. I appreciate that Joseph has done good work on the encyclopedia, more than I ever have, and for longer. It doesn't feel good endorsing a CBAN for someone who I know is here to build an encyclopedia. But we're still, years later, asking all the same questions: what's different this time? Why was every promise made before broken, and why can we trust that this will be the first time they're kept?

   Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:55, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I understand why some users are wary of a community ban and think it's too harsh. I'm less concerned about the fact that recall was threatened; as GoodDay said, it probably wouldn't have gone anywhere. The greater issue is that he was blocked for this behavior pattern before, and the block was ineffective. I can't see a topic ban having the desired effect. I think there's a broader issue with toxicity at INTC but that's out of scope this time around. I wouldn't want anyone outside the project to read that discussion. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. As with what seems to be an increasingly common occurrence, we keep giving editors one last chance, over and over again, until it turns into something like this and they become a net negative for the community.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 03:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose ITN is an adversarial process and so such bluster and over-heated rhetoric is common there. The parties often try to push the admins to close discussions in their preferred direction using procedural devices. The invocation of a recall petition was implausible but that process is legitimate and fairly new so editors should not be punished so severely for trying it on. It clearly failed to work in this case and so it seems unlikely that anyone will be rushing to repeat it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Even though Acalamari eventually ended up posting it, there was obviously a chilling effect in the fact that it went without sysop attention for over a day. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's not accurate. It was posted by Amakuru not Acalamari. Joseph's comment was made late on 31st January. Amakuru posted the story around midday the following day. Allowing for night and sleep, that was quite a quick response in just a few hours. My impression was that Joseph's comment had provoked the posting by drawing attention to the matter.

  Moreover the context was that the discussion was protracted and had already lasted for six days and so the supporters were getting somewhat frantic as it was going to scroll off soon. They started badgering the admins to post with comments like Are we getting a decision soon? This expires in little more then a day ... Agree that the admins here should show some spine. Chorchapu then pinged the admins collectively and so Joseph was reacting to this noisy pressure.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  While length of time from it being posted was due to it being the weekend, there was indeed a factor that it will be archived in a few hours without a definitive decision. A six-day discussion should not have happened, concerning the fact that several people wanted ITN to be timely. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion had lasted so long because there wasn't a clear consensus. I counted up at the end and made it 20 supports to 15 opposes. Admins are usually reluctant to close such contentious discussions because they take some time to digest and, if you make a call, the losing side will be upset. My view is that such divisive discussions should always be closed as "no consensus" because the result was obviously disagreement rather than a meeting of minds. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  If a 20:15 margin is "no consensus", nothing in ITN will be posted. I've seen AFDs with closer outcomes and the admin closed it as a delete... that discussion took a month tho lol Howard the Duck (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's inaccurate too. Consider the most recent blurb posting: 2026 Balochistan attacks. That was unanimous and that's not unusual at ITN. A 20:15 dispute is a 57% ratio and that's obviously the opposite of consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Balochistan has clear consensus. Noms in 20:15 margins or closer are not as rare; if those are considered as "no consensus", nothing will be posted. For example, the Epstein files nom is 8-5 by my count. There's a high chance this'll be contentious as well.

  Also, why are we vote counting? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, if proponents were urging the admins to have a decision, those against were also dragging the discussion for it to be archived without a decision. Some also opposed citing low number of deaths, but conveniently didn't return once the deaths hit triple digits. All sides were not without fault. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  My apologies for getting the names mixed up; however, the discussion was dragging out an awful while. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support site ban. My thoughts are similar to LakesideMiners. I'm definitely not a fan of these "if you do X I'll recall you threats" and spoke about another one not long ago. This one is more ironic than that though in that it seems very unlikely a recall would have achieved anything but guarantee a site ban for Joseph2302. Regardless, like others, I don't feel a threat of a recall is enough and wouldn't have supported this if there was nothing else or at least limited misbehaviour. But there is quite extensive history here & while it may have been a while, it's not that long given their history. Although the 2022 thing was not a community discussion, I think we have a problem in that we say unblocks are cheap since we can easily reblock or re-implement a ban but in practice it's often quite difficult to do so. (I mentioned this in another recent discussion.) IMO this means we tend to be harsher with unblocks/unbans than we need to be since everyone knows the score. It would probably be better if we were more lenient but stricter with reblocks. I don't think this is setting editors up for failure, I'm not saying the slightest misbehaviour results in a reblock but definitely serious misbehaviour should. And since assurances were made not just for the ITN block which thankfully has been quickly re-implemented, but for the unblock too. Sink or swim should mean sink or swim, it was Joseph2302's choice for both. Either way, I'd also support an ITN topic ban to ensure the community has a say. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• (former admin comment) Oppose CBAN. For now. on reflection, struck oppose to CBAN Endorse ITN TBAN. @Joseph2302: In the event the CBAN does not pass, you must cease from aspersions and offering threats and any other form of intimidation. This is not your first trip to ANI. Please gain some insight into your behavior.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Switch to strong support for CBAN as first choice per Closed Limelike Curves, AusLondonder, The Bushranger and Borgenland. I hold members of the Community to a higher level of ethics than is found in politics. Bullying and intimidation are never acceptable. Especially to circumvent consensus. There are better ways to address decisions we do not agree with. And I find it unacceptable that such horrid behavior is considered acceptable at ITN, or at ANI, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Recall's purpose is to remove bad admins and not to be a club with which to force action or inaction by anyone. In the context of Joseph2302's block/unblock record and their past, broken promises to mend their ways, replete with apologies that now look like lip service, it is time to CBAN them. Joseph 2302 has repeatedly behaved in a manner below community standards and is not compatible with a collaborative project. ITN TBAN is now my second choice should the CBAN not carry. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support for CBAN. Preemptive threat is a clear violation of abusing the admin recall process and also a violation of UCoC 3.2 (psychological manipulation) per BusterD. Their block log showed sustained, persistent pattern of issues. Given their past brushes with indef blocks that were later lifted, we are dealing with an unblockable member that doesn't rehabilitate and that even indef blocks doesn't deliver a strong enough message to stop their disruptive and inappropriate conduct. The fact that Yamla's message towards Vanilla Wizard 6 years ago per Vanilla Wizard's comment above predicted this scenario demonstrates repeated and predictable behaviour pattern. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. In constitutional law, there is the idea that political speech is the most strongly protected form of speech, because the ability to speak truth to power is fundamentally at the core of any free and equal decision-making process. For the same reason I want to establish a precedent on Wikipedia that proposing admin recalls must be protected speech, for the same reason campaigning against a politician—even for stupid, unethical, or inappropriate reasons—is essentially always protected speech. We can't afford a situation where it's impossible for users to speak out against admins for misbehavior.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a difference between "proposing" and "threatening". In this case, Joseph was blanket-threatening any administrator who were to post a specific ITN entry, which is uncollaborative for an encyclopedia and a deliberate attempt to de-rail the process. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yet in politics there is also a difference between saying that you'll run against someone in an election and saying you'll shoot them. One is protected, and the other is very much not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nobody proposed shooting anyone, just a recall. You're generally allowed to say you'll start a recall petition against an elected politician if they do something you think is bad. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

In politics one person saying they'll start a recall petition is unlikely to go anywhere or even make an impact. On Wikipedia a recall petition is the news of the month, and given the current dissatisfactory (to say the least) state of recall it has every chance to lead to something. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I also disagree with Closed Limelike Curves. The threat under discussion was intended, as noted above, to have a chilling effect that would discourage all, repeat all admins from posting a community nominated blurb. CLC would seem to advocate, as I see it, a type of Wild West shootout where all admins are subject to preemptive threats in the name of free or protected speech. This type of blanket threat will quickly turn Wikipedia into a jungle. Citing constitutional law at AN/I is apples and oranges. Jusdafax (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposing a recall because you have reasonable concerns about an admin, fine. Using the threat of recall in an attempt to get your own way through coercion is a whole different story. Likening this to running against a politician in an election is illogical. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I never thought I'd have to link WP:FREESPEECH when it comes to WP:RECALL, and yet, here we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Support CBAN now that such romanticizing of intimidation in the name of "free speech" has began rearing its ugly head. Borgenland (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is a fruitful and productive editor that seems to have unproductive tendencies in regards to ITN. A TBAN is more appropriate and in the best interest of Wikipedia. Jcgaylor (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support minimally TBAN, and neutral on CBAN. Throwing around recall threats is all kinds of wrong. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Cificis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been multiply warned (or even blocked) by other contributors by adding unsourced contents or being disruptive (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc). However, they added unsourced genres again in Stateside (song), and I don't think this user is going to be constructive in Wikipedia anymore. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 12:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It's time for an indef block to protect Wikipedia. This editor doesn't seem to change with repeated warnings and a previous block. Sundayclose (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

User:TruthfulSpeech

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

---

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

TruthfulSpeech shows an array of inappropriate behaviour. They came to my attention for doing a soapbox rant on Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory in favour of the racist conspiracy theory and attacking unspecified other editors. I was going to give them a warning and move on but a glance at their other contributions raised other concerns. Their main thing seems to be Silesian nationalism, which is a POV but probably not an intrinsic problem. What is a problem is that they have userboxes with crossed out LGBT and Polish flags on them. This is clearly indicative of bigotry. The anti-LGBT one attempts to evade scrutiny by saying "This user hopes for the Wellbeing of all" which is very obviously sarcastic or dishonest when paired with a crossed out rainbow flag. (They did not upload the crossed out flags themself but I would question whether such crossed out flags have any legitimate use.) Finally there is the username itself which implies problems around WP:TRUTH and dovetails with the soapboxing. Given that they promote racist conspiracy theories, attack other national and social groups, and engage in trolling other editors, I think that WP:HID is well in scope here. Failing that, disruption is disruptive. They have had a block (and unblock) before. I don't think that they are able to curtail their disruptive behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

If they are ever allowed back from the indef block they are about to receive they should change their username. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There are definitely issues that smack of POV editing, and this is not their first trip to ANI, so this could be WP:NOTHERE. I would like to hear them address your points directly. @TruthfulSpeech: What do you have to say for yourself? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't really know what the points are besides nationalism and not believing people are "born gay" - the image I used was already on the wiki, so I have not written on my userpage anything that didn't already exist , or anything harmful. Also, the flag crossed out is not the gay flag, simply a rainbow, people can interpret it as they like. 👍 TruthfulSpeech (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering those were placed in the time period after your block by @Bishonen for personal attacks, I'm not sure you've learned much since then. Have you spent any time reading the five pillars? Looking over your edit history, if you survive this ANI discussion (and based on past performance coupled with your flimsy response, that's a long-shot), you need to seriously consider a major reset in what you think it is we do here and what the community expectation is; meaning, we're not a free-for-all for people to soapbox their personal viewpoint. If you can't function appropriately within that construct, it's not going to go well for you. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Do not remember or really know who Bishonen is, not do I acknowledge any personal attacks, if a "many people on this site are far left" is considered an attack, then this site really has fallen. And yes, my userpage is about my viewpoints, about my belief in freedom of speech, and about *me*, having an issue about someone's user page when it talks about no one besides themselves is really childish and overall sad. TruthfulSpeech (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Then I guess you just provided your own rope... ButlerBlog (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you're missing the point totally here. First of all, this is a private website and you have no freedom of speech here (WP:NOFREESPEECH). Secondly, it's a collaborative encyclopedia, including people of all races, genders, sexual orientations and viewpoints, and there is absolutely no need for that anti-gay userbox. It's the equivalent of walking alone down a busy street waving a physical flag saying "I don't like gay people". See how ridiculous it sounds now? Also, your "many people are far left" comment is merely a bit of whining about how people don't agree with you, so they must be "something you don't like". I strongly recommend you stick to the uncontroversial editing, because we have a very low tolerance level for this type of thing. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"Also, the flag crossed out is not the gay flag, simply a rainbow, people can interpret it as they like". OK. That's it. That's got to be the indef right there. The dishonesty. The contempt. The gleeful trolling. That's completely incompatible with a collaborative project. Maybe somebody needs to look at their edits on the other language Wikipedias. If they behave like this here then they might behave even worse on Wikipedias that receive less scrutiny. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE and incredibly even doubling down with hateful soapboxing above "not believing people are "born gay"". Expressing hateful, bigoted views unprompted is clear evidence of a complete inability to work collaboratively with others to build an encyclopaedia. We are under no obligation to be the platform for someone's free speech on a private website. Why should we tolerate disruptive behaviour and hateful rants? Take your vile views elsewhere. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked as not here. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

TA rapidly submitting many non-viable drafts

~2026-58793-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered five days ago, and has at this point created 21 drafts consisting of one or two sentences with no sources. Many of them are clearly hoaxes, for instance Draft:Cars 4 (2024), Draft:Planes 3 (2018), and Draft:Incredibles 3 (2026), while others are about topics that might exist (I haven't checked) but lack both sources and claims to significance, for instance Draft:The Two Plumbers and the New Princess (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episode), Draft:Vídeo Brinquedo (1986), and Draft:The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)/Quotes. Their user talk page is a long list of draft decline and rejection notices, plus a couple of warnings (including a final warning from me half an hour ago) for creating inappropriate pages. No reaction to any of the notices, but three of the drafts were created after my final warning: Draft:Rule the World (Phil Collins song) (2007), Draft:Hollywood (Rebecca Black song) (2009), and Draft:Club Can't Handle Me (Phil Collins song) (2010). They need at least a short block to get their attention.--bonadea contributions talk 13:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• I've partial blocked them from draftspace (and articlespace, just in case) to get their attention. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Statement of counsel – call for community dialogue

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

---

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.

Acting on behalf of Marina Redaktor and her brother, previously editing under the account name Paradygmaty, I hereby restate their position clearly, expressly, and in good faith.

For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of additional accounts is not, in itself, prohibited when disclosed openly and used without bad faith. This statement is made transparently and deliberately.

My clients have recently become aware that they again possess the technical ability to edit Wikipedia. After careful reflection, however, they state plainly that they do not wish to participate in this project unless there is a genuine willingness on the part of the community to engage in fair, substantive, and content-based dialogue.

What remains within their control is their own judgment. What lies outside it is the conduct of others. Their trust in the platform was fundamentally undermined by the removal of a substantial body of work authored by Marina Redaktor—work that was factual, sourced, and prepared with due care.

On multiple occasions, objections were not addressed on their merits. Evidence was disregarded, substantive arguments were bypassed, and discussion was redirected away from content toward procedural or personal considerations. The repetition of this pattern made meaningful participation impossible.

Of particular concern was the deletion of the biography of Theodore L. Dobol, a distinguished American soldier and combat-decorated veteran. The removal of documented historical material without genuine engagement with its substance illustrates a departure from neutral editorial assessment.

The relevant discussions concerning Marina Redaktor’s contributions remain available. My clients therefore formally invite the competent bodies and experienced members of the Wikipedia community to review those discussions and to assess, in good faith, whether some of the removed material warranted retention or restoration. This statement should be understood as an invitation to dialogue and mediation, not as an attempt to reopen conflict.

At the same time, my clients express their genuine astonishment that on 30 January 2026, user @Voorts: withdrew an edit without providing any justification. Such an unexplained action is difficult to reconcile with standards of transparency and accountability and further supports the need for direct, substantive discussion.

For the sake of clarity, my clients do not have access to the previously used account. They nonetheless reasonably expect that content created in good faith—where factually correct and properly sourced—may be evaluated independently of account status.

If, however, the Wikipedia community does not, in fact, wish my clients to be part of it, this position should be stated openly and without ambiguity. In such a case, the community may choose to block the relevant IP address. It should be noted that other active and non-blocked contributors also operate from that IP. While such a measure would affect them, it may equally be regarded as a benefit, allowing them to redirect their efforts and focus on other endeavors.

Finally, my clients consider it unjust that long-standing and highly contributing users should be expected to remain within a system that repeatedly avoids resolving matters on their merits. This statement is made also to prevent others from being placed in a comparable position. ~2026-70302-0 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. So what is the urgent incident and/or behavioral problem that you are reporting.— Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Paradygmaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Marina Reddaktor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Looks like both of these accounts are blocked, if they want to have their accounts unblocked, their respective talk pages is the place for that, not this board.— Isaidnoway (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The page was created by a sockpuppet in violation of their block. The original account was blocked for not listening to others.

The (likely AI-generated) is just a repeat of this one.

@~2026-70302-0 No, we will not be changing our minds on this, the page was deleted in accordance with established Wikipedia policies, please stop violating your block by posting. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, Paradygmaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is CU-blocked (SPI) and any editing on behalf of them warrants a block as well. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Methinks they are represented by renowned counsel, Mr Chatham G. Pee-Tee. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

~2026-70302-0 is Confirmed to ~2026-66659-4 (TAIV). Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 13:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And blocked. CoconutOctopus talk 14:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It feels like the noticeboard is getting messages regarding Marina Reddaktor every other day lately... Nakonana (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I thought the community has already made it clear that "your clients" are not welcome here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Would it be worth a formal community ban for this person, or should we just keep it as a normal indef? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I checked and can see six suspected/confirmed) named sockpuppets linked to the master, I'm not sure how many TA's there are in total but these bring the account total up to at least eight.

You know what? Since they repeatedly say that they want to know what the community thinks, perhaps discussion of a community ban would be a good idea. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They're already community banned per WP:3X. So that's what the community thinks - that this person, like everyone else who has evaded their block like this, is banned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I miscounted the SPI & was going off the user page for the main account only - thanks for clarifying! Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Amranu revert-warring at Tachyon

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

---

• Tachyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@Amranu reverted 6 times within 24 hrs. Article: Tachyon Diffs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And the 7th times with NPA issue. 7 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Yup, do you get it yet? Amranu (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

jeez. looked at the user's edit history.

the user is basically clashing with literally every other editors since their first edit in 2024. Got blocked twice, and had to blank their talk page of the numerous warnings once[140].

definitely WP:NOTHERE. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fascinating. Definitely not here. Amranu (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from articles to stop the immediate issue. Any admin can extend the block if appropriate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, I hear you asked for an admin to extend the block. But I'd rather get it removed please.

Right though? Isn't this obvious to everyone at this point what is going on here? Amranu (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious to everyone. You should be banned from Wikipedia just like veryone else who pushes silly conspiracy theories like Gang stalking. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that they're just trolling at this point - see their responses to me on the Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You guys are fucking hilarious guys. I'm literally billions of years old. I control the tachyon array at the beginning and end of time by the way which take up the entire physical universe. Amranu (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh. Which part isn't obvious? Is there a statement I made you think people disagree with by the way? Maybe someone here is delusional about what they're in. It's a reality my wife and I control completely for billions of years from now by the way. Amranu (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What is going on is that a little over a year and ~200 edits, you have mostly edited three topics following which you are

• p/blocked indefinitely from Electronic harassment and Talk:Electronic harassment
• p/blocked indefinitely from Gang stalking and Talk:Gang stalking, and
• p/blocked indefinitely from article space after editwarring at Tachyon (do I count eight reverts or seven?)

There's a legitimate discussion to be had whether you are here to build an encyclopedia. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you think building an encyclopedia in reality really means when we all grant access to each other for our actions for the rest of the several billion years we have since we don't age.

Get over it guys, this is now a completely different game. Amranu (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Welp, been away playing videogames. I guess we can close this AN/I thread now. For interested admins, there's also a RFPP/confirmed for tachyon opened. iris 3:21a, edited 3:24a. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ohhh we can close it. Why though? Amranu (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Zweinler

Zweinler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user was repeatedly adding content from the infobox back into the infobox. [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152] I tried to contact them, [153] but they didn't respond. Then they repeated the same behavior. [154] I warned them again, [155] but they still didn't respond, and they repeated the same behavior. [156][157][158][159][160][161][162] Even after the admin warned them, [163] they continued with the same behavior. [164][165][166] They have 124 edits, 116 of which have been reverted, indicating a serious problem. Kajmer05 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They repeated the same behavior after the latest vandalism warning. [167][168] Kajmer05 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In their latest edit they remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced. I would support a block from article space. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space, invited them to reply to these concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Jinnifer

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

---

Hi guys,

So I found out that two editors @~2026-39144-98 and @~2026-66670-9 are likely sockpuppets of @Jinnifer.

The 666 user (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1336010499) made an EXTREMELY similar edit to the 391 user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-Men_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1334729941.

The 391 user has also been stated as a sockpuppet by another user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Know_What_You_Did_Last_Summer_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=1335847748.

Not just that but they've made SUPER similar edits to articles they have both edited, such as the Rambo one.

I have reported them both on the Sockpuppet page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jinnifer). However, the 666 user has been hostile to me, accusing him of "judging" him and that he's a "true fan" and that people like me do not belong on the website.

Talk:X-Men (film series)#Timeline question

Please help. Alien456 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT applies. You have already stated your case, do not engage further. Just walk away and do something else first. Let a admin or checkuser evaluate the details. – robertsky (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Robert. Alien456 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE: User has continued making sock edits. He has again continued trying to gaslight people into supporting him. He is also trying to gaslight me into starting a war against him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rambo_(franchise)&action=history

User talk:~2026-66670-9 Alien456 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been consistently reverting his edits but he keeps persisting. Please give this user a permaban. Alien456 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: User has accused me of "attacking" him. I did not. He's a sock puppet who keeps trying to force his views onto articles. Alien456 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Why would you let them know that you reported them? That feeds the troll. Next time just report them and otherwise just ignore them. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 21:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Because it says in the guidelines I have to let them know. Alien456 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Alien456 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

UPDATE:

User is now vandalizing article as per the tags:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rambo_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=1336078784 Alien456 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry. I already reported them to WP:AIV. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 21:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Pro. I found that the user just tried to gaslight you on your talk page. Do not listen to them. Alien456 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

MAJOR UPDATE:

User has begun sending death threats to me after I thanked other users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Untamed1910&diff=prev&oldid=1336080745

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prothe1st&diff=prev&oldid=1336080978 Alien456 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Final update: The offending user has been blocked! Thank you @PhilKnight Alien456 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Invalid rejection of Draft:Morris–Smoltz pitching duel

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

---

• Draft:Morris–Smoltz pitching duel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The way the draft was declined is, IMO, invalid. They said the content should be merged into 1991 World Series, but that article is pushing 10,000 words. At the very least, a rejection here without multiple resubmissions is inappropriate. ~2026-71265-3 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruptive edit-warring by IP

2604:3D09:887F:4680:FD73:88D5:9312:958D and other IPs in the same area (likely same user) have engaged in persistent, long-term edit-warring and bludgeoning on a cluster of related articles including Droop Quota, instant-runoff voting, and single transferable vote for the past 2 years or so, which has already led to the page being semiprotected once. The editor has a consistent pattern of making the same edits adding a handful of mathematical mistakes over and over, then after being reverted, waiting several months for attention to die down before reintroducing them. Several other users, including academics in the relevant field, have explained their mistake to them and provided reliable sources explaining what the mistake is, as seen on Talk:Droop quota (where I count at least 5 different editors weighing in against the IP). Given this behavior has gone on for 2 years (!) and seems unlikely to stop, I'd like to request semiprotection on all these articles along with an IP block for their range. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unsubstantiated accusations of LLM use (User:Barry Wom)

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

---

I am reporting repeated accusations by User:Barry Wom that I used a large language model (LLM) to write a reply comment at Talk:Melania (film), and that I was “lying” about authorship. I previously stated there and on my talk page that I wrote it and asked that any concerns be raised at the appropriate channels with specific diffs. Despite that, the user posted several warning messages on both pages, repeating this allegation multiple times.

My reply on the Talk:Melania (film) article talk page was long and posted shortly after prior comments, which prompted the flag. I acknowledged the concern about length and stated I would keep future comments concise.

User:Black Kite(admin) had already earlier addressed the issue on my talk page and I responded.

Evidence (diffs): 1. Initial notice by Black Kite on my user talk page: diff 2. Assertion I was “lying”: diff 3. Re-adding the warning after I removed it as redundant: diff 4. Warning at Talk:Melania (film): diff 5. My responses asking that any concerns be raised at an noticeboard: diff

I would appreciate guidance from an uninvolved admin on whether this kind of repeated allegation and templated warning on a user talk page is appropriate. If not, I would be grateful if the user could be asked either to drop the issue or to pursue any conduct concerns through the usual processes. I am not asking for sanctions, just some direction and closure. [Edited; cleaned-up]

This post certainly isn't helping your case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tech Bytez Can you go back to ChatGPT and ask it to show you how to link a diff? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked this denial-based user 31 hours after they tried to play the game again at Talk:Melania (film). Their final response to my block did not appear to utilize a large language model. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" is doing some heavy lifting here. Barry Wom (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

engvar altering + ignoring all requests to stop

Chuiwan10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single purpose user whose entire editing history is altering pages against MOS:RETAIN. Multiple editors over the last 3 months have asked them to stop on their talk page, and they clearly are not responding or caring. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They've never edited a talk page. I've partially blocked from mainspace in the hope of forcing them to engage with concerns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Report vandalism

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

---

Hi, I’d like to flag a concern regarding User:DeleterofFalsehoods. The user has been repeatedly blanking/cleaning comments on the Teahouse. A warning was already given, but the behaviour has continued. This is disrupting discussion and may not align with Teahouse norms. Requesting a review. QuickRevert (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't looked into this case yet, but would strongly advise that editor to change their username, for the same reason that many editors are suspicious of people with "truth" in their names. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Giving suggestions isn’t very helpful here as the user hasn’t responded at all to the warning on their talk page about repeatedly removing Teahouse comments. Addressing that first would be more relevant. QuickRevert (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

They have received a block. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

RakowskiC

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

Do we have a lot of interest in emphasizing the foreignness of certain political figures and edit-warring about it? check check check, check check check, check check check. Do we have a lot of arguments about how the great replacement theory is a thing? check check check. Even without the edit-warring and relentless failure to appreciate that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than original research, it should be clear that this person is a net negative and should be escorted off the project ASAP. --JBL (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

My edits were neutral, reasonable, properly sourced, and about transparency. RakowskiC (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

And repetitive and WP:IDHT. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You’re denying a basic fact that Ilhan Omar was a citizen of Somalia for a portion of her life from 1982. I was willing to compromise. You just don’t want to include this fact. ~2026-70792-0 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I never denied that. Indeed, I looked through pages of Google to find a reliable source. Didn't find one. So we cannot include it. Don't see a reason for inclusion anyhow. By claiming I denied it and still failing to provide a source, you are again demonstrating WP:IDHT. I suggest you change your path. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

1. She was born in Somalia. Several sources say “Somalia born”.

2. Her father was Somali (god bless his soul). He was in the Somali military even. Several sources include this.

3. She is a member of a specific clan there.

4. Under nationality laws of Somalia, she was at the very least a citizen of Somalia until at least she naturalized. Then Somalia removed the prohibition on dual citizenship in 2012.

5. there is no record of revocation/renunciation of Somalia citizenship.

6. She was in Somalia for at least 9 years.

7. she is heavily involved in Somali politics.

8. Her U.S. citizenship is heavily contested because it is confirmed there is no record from USCIS of her father’s naturalization that she claims she piggy backed off which you refuse to allow into the Wikipedia page. But I don’t want to challenge her U.S. citizenship.

9. I tried to compromise and all I wanted to put in the citizenship box is

Somalia 1982-unknown

United States 2000-present. I don’t understand why we can’t put an EFN or something to support it if we all agree she was a citizen of Somalia for at least a portion of her life. RakowskiC (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

10. She also has referred to the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as “our president” when addressing a Somali crowd speaking Somali. On several occasions, she claims to be Somali. If this were a white man claiming to be American and referring to President Trump as “our president”, we wouldn’t doubt he’s a U.S. citizen. Why are we doubting that Ilhan Omar is Somali? RakowskiC (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH. Also, be very careful about plain reading of law. Tomatos are botanically and scientifically a fruit, but according to the US Supreme Court, are a vegetable. This is hardly the only case so counterintuitive. Laws don't always mean what they seem like they should. That's why we rely on WP:RS, not our own interpretations. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't doubt anything, or know anything, Wikipedia only summarises what is found in other sources. What you need is a source that says "Omar is a Somali citizen" or words to that effect. You can't use your own piecing together of different points to prove it, that's not what Wikipedia does. You need to read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:No Original Research, they explain (some part) of how to edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems particularly sad that on the talk page RakowskiC had claimed there is insufficient sourcing to show Omar is a US citizen. But Omar has been repeatedly accused including by the US president, of marrying her brother either to help him gain US citizenship or for her own citizenship. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Her Wikipedia page refuses to cite that it is confirmed that USCIS confirmed there is no record of her father’s naturalization which directly contradicts her claims of how she obtained citizenship. RakowskiC (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you countless times that Wikipedia does not permit us to include our original research, including synthesis of information from mutliple sources. You cannot include the claim that Omar is (or indeed was) a Somali citizen unless a reliable secondary source explicitly states as much. Even if it is logical to infer as much from Somali citizenship law, to make and include that inference is original research. Athanelar (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have not tried to put it yet. I am looking for a source that points out she at one point held citizenship in Somalia. You need to stop making disruptive edits. RakowskiC (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop flinging around the term "disruptive editing" as if accusing other editors is going to relieve any scrutiny from you. Athanelar (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

RakowskiC, you don't seem to be responding appropriately to your position right now. A very experienced editor has made a case that you are exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behaviors. The way I see it, there are three behaviors of concern:

• Ethno-nationalist editing, per the OP (Related to WP:NONAZIS)
• Not understanding or conforming to Wikipedia sourcing standards (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH in particular)
• WP:IDHT by continually using the same argument after the community has dismissed it.

At the end of the day, it's not "truth" that judges whether you can edit here, it's the community. You would be better served by explaining how you'll adopt the community's standards rather than trying to insist your edits are correct. If you like, I can discuss on your talk page how to challenge a long-held consensus, but if you want to edit at all, you need to convince other editors that you can play by their rules, not your own. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your edits were, reasonably-speaking, not transparent; transparently-speaking, non-neutral; neutrally-speaking, improperly sourced; and proper sourcing shows them to be non-transparent. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Wanting transparency around dual citizenship does not make me, (a non-white man with several citizenships myself) an ethno-nationalist or a Nazi. That’s absurd. We need to find a solution instead of having users like Athanelar baselessly reverting my perfectly good cited additions about the dual citizenship of other politicians like Bernie Moreno, the senator who wanted to ban dual citizenship.

If you have a figure like Ilhan Omar and you only have citizenship: United States (2000-present) and she being born in 1982, one would likely incorrectly assume that before 2000 she was stateless her entire life which is completely false and unacceptable because there is no source that she was stateless. RakowskiC (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. None of us can see you or your details, all we have is your behavior to go on, and it's the same used by ethno-nationalists. And again, Athanelar is not baselessly reverting; that's an WP:ASPERSION. They are reverting because WP:ONUS, citing WP:UNDUE. You can disagree, but that doesn't make them baseless. You need to change your approach, quick, because each response of yours makes me think JBL is right, and that you're a poor fit for this encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Rakowski looks like a Polish name to me. That must be proof that this editor has Polish citizenship. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Quite. And since that means that they're a foreigner -- a foreigner from a former Communist dictatorship, with a current right-wing reactionary president -- they must be an agent provocateur intent on destabilizing the United States Congress. Guess what, @RakowskiC -- Phil Bridger and I have provided exactly as many reliable, independent sources backing our assertions as you have.

Now all silliness aside, I'm curious: why is this so very important to you? What is your compelling reason for stipulating that Omar is a Somali citizen, no matter that you've been unable to come up with reliable sources claiming so? Ravenswing 13:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Dual citizenship is extremely important to include for all political figures. Now please stop removing my correct cited edits on the Republican Bernie Moreno. RakowskiC (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Neither Phil Bridger or Ravenswing have edited your edits to Bernie Moreno (from what I can see). Also, daul citizenship is not that important for all political figures. Finally, no relaible sources for Omar being a Somali citizen, per Ravenswing above me. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hate is disruptive and his editor's activity shows an inability to compartmentalise their stances on these issues and avoid it affecting their on-wiki behaviour. Get rid of 'em. Athanelar (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn’t hate. Pointing out dual citizenship for all politicians is good. You deleted my properly cited edits to Bernie Moreno. It was already cited in the article that he renounced his Colombian citizenship at age 18. In fact that was the most previous edit and I know that because I’m the one who put it. RakowskiC (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Pointing out dual citizenship for all politicians is good. Why is it good? Nakonana (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Because citizenship is a neutral fact that helps the reader understand the politician or any figure to be honest. RakowskiC (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Why and how would knowing the dual citizenship of some Bernie Moreno guy help me — a European who has never heard of that guy — understand that politician? And why would simply knowing his place of birth not do the trick? Why do I need to know that he was born in a country other than the US and that he has dual citizenship? What additional understanding does the knowledge about the dual citizenship add for me? Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The entire point here is your focus on placing undue weight on politicians' former citizenship status. Athanelar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I support the initial report. RakowskiC has demonstrated a persistent inability and unwillingness to adhere to core Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOR and WP:V. Across multiple articles, they attempt to insert claims based on their own legal synthesis or insist on including details like inferred citizenship for which no reliable secondary source is provided, despite extensive explanation from multiple editors. Their focus also aligns with known conspiracy theories like the Great Replacement, which is violation of WP:FRINGE. This constitutes original research. When their edits are reverted per policy, they re-argue and re-insert, creating a disruptive pattern of tendentious editing. Their focus on emphasizing the foreign origins or citizenship of a particular set of politicians, against consensus and policy, introduces a systemic bias into articles. They have been given ample opportunity to understand policy but continue to argue against the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This is disruptive behavior, and a net negative for Wikipedia's integrity. Luka Maglc (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the overall consensus for infoboxes of politician bios, concerning former citzenships? Is it 'include' or 'exclude'? GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Based off Mark Carney, I would assume it’s to include former too. ~2026-72920-3 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I would assume it would be simply to refer to WP:DUE. Katzrockso (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Athanelar

This user removed my correct properly cited edits to the history of citizenship on Bernie Moreno for no reason. It is easily verifiable as there are multiple sources that Bernie Moreno renounced his Colombian citizenship. This is disruptive editing. RakowskiC (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I invite you to read on the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I will combine this with the previous report. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You should consider WP:ONUS. Basically, if something is disputed, it stays out of an article until the consensus says it should be in. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Reverting an edit is not in itself disruptive, even if it's properly cited, if someone reverts your edit I would always suggest starting a discussion on the articles talk page. Being verifiable is something that all content requires, but it doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

His reason was purely ad hominem instead of looking at the content itself. RakowskiC (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Not here?

Looking at the TAIV data for Special:Contributions/~2026-70792-0 makes me think this user isn't here to contribute to an encyclopedia and needs to be dealt with. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done: Underlying IP blocked. It's a hard block so RakowskiC won't be able to get back to us for a bit. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked as a WP:LOUTSOCK Doug Weller talk 19:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting that he replied to O3000, Ret. in the first person. Must have slipped up realizing he wasn't signed in per Doug. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Given the repeated blatantly obvious loutsocking there, combined with the overall disruptiveness and unwillingness to listen demonstrated above, I've indef'd RakowskiC. If they make a turnabout when it comes to clue in unblock requests, my blessing to anyone willing to offer them WP:ROPE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Grapesurgeon

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

---

@Grapesurgeon is constantly reverting edits as seen on Baylen Dupree in order to start an edit war.

He also utilizes a sock puppet account @Grapesurgeon (usurped) Wikiwarria (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiwarria - just a question, is this your first account on Wikipedia? HurricaneZeta^C 23:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

yes. i'm learning as i edit Wikiwarria (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Wikiwarria, in his first revert, GS suggested that your create a draft and submit it through WP:AFC instead. I second his advise here. Check out Your First Article, and then write up a draft for submission at AFC, where it will be reviewed by an experienced editor who will move it to mainspace if they agree it's ready. Nil🥝 23:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Wikiwarria: Please read our notability guidelines, our policy against edit warring, and our guide to writing your first article. I've redirected the article back to the show's article, and I'd advise you to use the Articles for Creation process if you'd like to continue working on this draft. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They took me to ANI without warning over reverting a page that was not ready for mainspace. this is when I got my new username. WP:BOOMERANG? grapesurgeon (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

[169] increasingly feeling like they're WP:NOTHERE grapesurgeon (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

he's in the discord server for the english wikipedia and he's trying to get me banned. i am definitely here to build an encyclopedia. check my edit history - i am sandboxing my own account Wikiwarria (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Discord is discord, separate from Wikipedia. [170] this is the context. Also are you not trying to angle to get me banned for... something? I'm not gna reply anymore, nothing left to say. grapesurgeon (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

if you have nothing left to say, this case is closed Wikiwarria (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you twice tag your own userpage as being that of a sockpuppeteer [171][172] and how did you even discover that template? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

i clicked sock puppetry when i made the noticeboard topic Wikiwarria (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

They were testing out sockpuppet templates on their userpage to put them on grapesurgeon's userpage. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh boy. Wikiwarria, you're going to talk yourself into a block. Stop messing with things you don't understand, and listen to advice. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

An utterly baseless waste of ANI space. Wikiwarria, stop wasting our time. There's no sockpupperty, and accusations like that with no basis are personal attacks. The existience of an account with the same name with four edits in 2018 is evidence of precisely nothing except that the account was usurped by the current editor. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Continued unattributed translations, failure to communicate

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

MicNickBell has been warned seven times since June 2025 for unattributed translations (June, July x 3, January, February x2), most recently for PACE Platform for Dialogue with Russian Democratic Forces, and has not responded to any of them. Indeed, MicNickBell has never edited their talk page. The user already has an article-specific block due to failure to communicate. Given the volume of unheeded warnings, I propose an mainspace block for this user until they communicate, acknowledge the warnings and agree to correct attribution going forward. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until such time as the commit to providing the required attributions when translating from Wikipedia articles in other languages. -- Whpq (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Harassment & personal attacks by Margarita byca

Margarita byca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Margarita byca reverts all my edits simply because I was blocked before [173]. After warning her of Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding at her talk page [174], she is still reverting my eidts [175]. I provided my explanations for my contructive edits[176], but she is now attacking me more saying I'm "politically motivated"[177]. Please help. H2v5o68z (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User H2v5o68z keeps removing photos from Shenyang article for some bogus reasons, ie "Too many photoes". This user has been spotted before by vandalizing other articles, like Beijing, University of International Relations and others. They have been banned before at least TWO times, and they keep changing username to avoid detection. Thank you. Margarita byca (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

My recent edits on Shenyang was to improve article quality by replacing unneutral and inappropriate photoes with better suitable photoes [178]. User:Margarita byca is confusing this with "adding more photoes". In addition, Beijing, University of International Relations are longtime ago, even not related here. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur that the OP who reported Margarita should probably be looked at. Their previous name was EditQ and from my brief interactions with them they have made questionable edits in the past and have also had run ins with other editors like @Esiymbro: who I know are of good repute. Qiushufang (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Where did you interacted with me? User name change is totally legal in Wiki. It was done by admin. I'm not hiding anything. The old user name redirect to the current name. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

And before March 2025, their username was E2568.

This user is constantly changing their username and blanking talk page to avoid detection.

I think that none of their edits can be trusted. Margarita byca (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That's it. All User:Margarita byca wants to do is to trace me and revert my constructive edits. That is harrassment and personal attack. My user name change was done via admin. It was not changed for any reasons related to you, and it is totall fine with Wiki rules. User talk page is a private space. I can delete anything you left there that I feel inppropriate or harassing. I think it is necessary for admins to take actions on User:Margarita byca to prevent her from harrassing me. H2v5o68z (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

How could replacing File:Jiǔ-yībā Lìshǐ Bówùguǎn九・一八歴史博物館106997.jpg with File:辽宁省博物馆06418.jpg, replacing File:Xinle culture 348.JPG with File:Shenyang Olympic Sports Center Stadium drone view 1.jpg be vandalism? User:Margarita byca has never provided any reasons why these are vandalism. All she said was "YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED TWICE IN THE BAST FOR VANDALISM. YOU EDITS ARE NOT TRUSTED". It is purely personal attack. H2v5o68z (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

User:~2026-70921-0 has continued to vandalize Springfield Anglican College 8 times, despite numerous warnings. Thank you for your time Dafootballguy (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• In future, instead of posting here, post on WP:AIV for obvious vandalism. Faster. grapesurgeon (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Danstarr69

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

---

Despite being blocked, Danstarr69 is soliciting others to edit on their behalf on their talk page, and arguing the toss when told not to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Gave them a final warning. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ugh, talk about that guy being aggressively clueless. Two years on and he still won't let it go. Ravenswing 13:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Why, when I had already done so (in the section linked above), and their response was to argue, as I described above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A bit moot, if you think about it: the guy's already been blocked for two years. About the only thing left would be TPA revocation, which would admittedly be just. Ravenswing 15:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Not moot in the least, since the warning I gave (again, I linked above to the discussion) was "If you use this page for anything other than appealing the block, you will be blocked from editing here also.".

I really don't see why such heavy weather is being made of this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Danstarr69's request was clearly inappropriate, but I looked at the article, and the material that was added was entirely unsourced, so I rv'd it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have revoked Danstarr69's talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

user:Cimbebas

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

---

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

Massive undisclosed LLM usage, continuing over many months. WP:NOTHERE, maybe? sapphaline (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I can see no evidence whatsoever that you have attempted to communicate with this contributor. Why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

There was a warning on their talk page in July of 2025; they didn't answer it and simply continued to add unsourced/LLM-generated content. sapphaline (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That 'warning' says nothing whatsoever about LLM use. Please read the notes at the top of this page, and don't start threads here until you have at least attempted to make the contributor aware of what the issue is. We don't pre-emptively block people for lack of awareness of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Cimbebas hasn't been communicating with anybody, as far as I can tell. That alone, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

So is the failure of other people to actually explain what the issue is. As far as I'm aware, not being able to read minds has never been a legitimate reason to bring anyone to ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The user hasn't even edited in nearly a month, in any case. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Occisors at Luigi Mangione

Occisors (talk · contribs) keeps deleting sourced information from Luigi Mangione despite an ongoing discussion at the talk page. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I put a CT first alert on his talk page. I didn't see any prior alerting of him regarding CT. there's also a request to semiprotect the article at WP:RPP -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I normally do place warning tags beforehand, but in this case I had already warned the user in the discussion at Talk:Luigi Mangione#Subject's nationality. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, so Ivan is not being truthful here. As I have explained in my message below, Ivan seems to be doing this in retaliation. I saw you have reverted my edits and I kindly ask that you undo that. Because the information on this wiki page is now incorrect. The "sourced" information Ivan speaks of, was either not sourced correctly, didn't back up the claims it claims to, or is unreliable. Multiple users have reverted Ivan's edits before. And Ivan has already been temporary banned from this page for similar behavior. Occisors (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to assume my good faith. I’m not reverting or reporting you for fun or vengeance, I’d rather focus my time on more important things tbh. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have tried assuming good faith for a long time and in that good faith, I have asked you, multiple times, to explain your reverts and you have not, you have not provided sources, you have not provided explanations, nothing, no reason for reversions. How is anyone supposed too assumer good faith, especially, after you clearly intentionally have also lied here and on the user board about my reversion of your ONE edit?

Let me summarize:

-someone else made an edit on nationality (i.e. Mangione is an Italian-American dual citizen), this edit has been up for a few days

-you decided to change it "boldly" even though NO ONE on the talk page on this topic has agreed with you

-someone else reverted this edit of yours

-you reverted it back (idk how many reversions there were, but then:

-I reverted your edit to someone else's edit you originally reverted (i.e. Mangione is an Italian-American dual citizen)

-you changed it back to your edit and then claimed the consensus has been reached and everyone agreed with you on the talk page

-I checked the talk page and saw that it was not true, as before, no one was agreeing with you

-Then you started edit waring and also deleting all of the other edits that I made (which were unrelated to the subject's nationality) for no reason

-I have brought this up in the talk page and asked you to explain yourself and your deletion of all my edits

-You then proceeded to lie that I was the one who made all the reversion's because I wanted that only my edit was up -which is not true and is easily checked in edit history. Essentially, projecting your own wrongdoings onto me. For the millionth time, the edit was not "mine" and multiple users have reverted your edit. Meanwhile, you are the only who thinks the page should stay up as it is now.

-I asked for another user (who's been monitoring this page to prevent edit warings) to step in,& the user told to stop all edits until consensus is reached.

-For this you reported me on this page, once again, lying about your edits being "sourced", so that someone on here without the knowledge of the situation steps in and reverts the page to your edits. Essentially, ONCE AGAIN, as you have before, editing the page by proxy when you're not allowed to in order to avoid getting banned and you have already been temporary banned at least once from this page (merely a week ago) for the same edit waring behavior. Occisors (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true. The information removed was either unsourced or incorrect or IvanScrooge98's original and biased research - which is not allowed on wikipedia. Ivan has already been temporary banned at least once from editing the page in question because he was the one who edited the certain information on this page while there was "an ongoing discussion". I cannot see how this is good faith "report" when Ivan has been reverting and changing all of my edits - edits which have been sourced - clearly in retaliation because I have reverted his incorrect original researched edits. Furthermore, Ivan claims I keep deleting sourced information "despite an ongoing discussion at the talk page", however Ivan is the one who made these unsourced edits "boldly" (as per his words) despite NO ONE in the talk page agreeing with Ivan. In other words, Ivan is accusing me of something he is guilty of. MULTIPLE users have reverted Ivan's edits. But even then, on the talk page, Ivan straight up claims that I am the "only one" who did that, just because I'm the most recent one? I don't know. I wasn't even the one who made the edit which even has changed over with his original research. This is just straight up gaslighting, I know we have to assume good faith, but there's just no explanation to this behavior especially after all the unfounded accusations on the talk page and now a report here. Ivan has also previously, while banned, used my talk page to ask me to make edits on this page, which I have now learned to be against wikpedia rules.

I have provided sources to back up my claims, while Ivan only uses their opinion with nothing to back it up. The very few sources (links to a few wiki pages) Ivan has provided, ended up contradicting Ivan's claims. Occisors (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Nope. I applied changes to the article as the discussion was going in the direction that there was no consensus to refer to the subject as “Italian-American”, changing the article to mention his Italian citizenship only marginally. It was an attempt to give each thing its due weight. What seems to be gaslighting is cherry-picking the few sources that refer to the subject by his double citizenship while contextually undoing all my edits, in addition to removing other pieces of sourced information. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you both discuss at the article talk page and come up with a consensus before making further edits. it looks to me like you're both edit warring. you're both at the 3RR line. i strongly suggest either starting an RfC or taking it to the dispute noticeboard -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"I applied changes to the article as the discussion was going in the direction" please stop with this gaslighting, this is insane. NO ONE was agreeing with you. Once again, at least 5 different users, not just me, have made edits/reverted your edits on subjects nationality, none of which agree with you.

"is cherry-picking the few sources that refer to the subject by his double citizenship" this absolute insanity, I have provided sources where the subject themselves refers to themselves as Italian-American dual citizen.

"contextually undoing all my edits, in addition to removing other pieces of sourced information." what is literally wrong with you? You are the one doing this, and I have already told you all of this on the talk page and in the comment above, you just pretty much took my messages and switched them up. Please stop lying. The only edit of yours that I have edited was about the subject's nationality - multiple users have done so - meanwhile you are THE ONLY user who is unhappy about this. You are the one who has reverted all of MY edits in retaliation - including edits that were completely unrelated to the subjects nationality, this can literally be check via edit history. And now you've made this baseless report to admin's board - after I have asked someone to step in to mediate in the talk page - as another form of retaliation and in order to have your edits reinstated by someone on here, who's not familiar with the topic, by hoping they believe when you say you provided "sourced information" when it's actually your biased opinion based on your original research.

This is absolutely appalling behavior, and not what wikipedia is about. I have spent hours of my time editing that page and looking up the sources, especially, for the legal topics, which contained incorrect/outdated info, and which you did not edit, in order to make it more correct and accurate. And you came in and started reverting them all because of your hurt feelings. You provided no reliable sources to back your claims, except for your opinion. I have already edited the page once because YOU asked for it specifically. I have no issue with doing that because I know that Wikipedia is supposed to accurate and unbiased. If you wanted to have your edit remain, you should have found reliable sources to back it up, instead of lying, deleting all of my edits in retaliation, and now making these reports here to waste everyone's time and have your incorrect edits reinstated without consensus.

If anyone needs to be reported here, it's you, you have already been banned from this page for edit warring - and it happened only like a week ago. Occisors (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Occisors, please consider using {{tq|text goes here}} for quotes - it marks them clearly like this without coming across as shouting. Meadowlark (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest requesting an dispute resolution or 3rd opinion to keep this content dispute as content dispute. It's okay and there is no deadline. We may not need to start discussing each others' behaviour here (where AN/I is for). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:CITIZEN is pretty clear on this issue; I don't think we need dispute resolution, as Occisors edits violate the aforementioned policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then explain how it's "pretty clear on this issue" ? MOS:CITIZEN has been discussed in the talk page regarding this, and my edit (and other people's edits, mind you - idk why you even said that the edits were mine-is this Ivan's alt account?) were not found in violation of that. Occisors (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Occisors why would you accuse OhNoitsJamie of being Ivan's alt? A quick look at OhNoitsJamie's profile shows that they are an administrator. Making accusations like that with no evidence isn't allowed, see WP:ASPERSIONS. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground and who's right or wrong does not matter as long as the encyclopedia gets improved; personal grievances can hurt the collaborative environment and getting emotional ("heated") often curtail one's ability to improve Wikipedia.

Ultimately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to read the relevant talk page discussion, but keep getting put off by the large bolded text. Occisors, can't you see that your formatting automatically makes people "side" against you before they've even read a word that you've written? Please write in normal text. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Continued edit warring on Eleven (Stranger Things) despite consensus-building efforts.

Involved editor: User:Gooperman

Article: Eleven (Stranger Things)

I am reporting an ongoing edit-warring issue involving User:Gooperman on the article Eleven (Stranger Things). On 10 January 2026, I opened a discussion on their talk page discussion after the repeated removal of the phrase “main protagonist,” outlining why the wording is commonly used on Wikipedia in ensemble narratives and asking for policy-based objections or sourcing if the wording was inappropriate. User:Gooperman replied briefly with the assertion that “a character is either the protagonist or not,” but did not cite any Wikipedia policy or guideline and did not engage with the substantive points raised in the discussion.

Despite the discussion remaining unresolved, User:Gooperman continued reverting the wording. I then sought a third opinion from User:Alex_21, who reviewed the situation, warned User:Gooperman for edit warring, and advised that discussion should take precedence over continued reverts. After this warning was issued, User:Gooperman has edited again and continues to remove the disputed wording without responding on either the article talk page or their user talk page, and without attempting to reach consensus.

I have stopped reverting and am seeking administrative assistance because the editor continues to revert disputed content during an active discussion and after receiving an edit-warring warning. I am requesting intervention to halt the edit warring and allow the issue to be resolved through discussion or appropriate dispute resolution. Overandoutnerd (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've explained myself in all my edit summaries, other editors have reverted you for the sane reason at other pages (other pages are linked to at my talk page), you never explain yourself in an edit summary, you just revert, and you're the only one to surpass the 3-revert rule. I'm not returning to this conversation.Gooperman (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Please, if you're going to bring something to ANI, don't make it an AI-generated report. I went through your past contributions and I am pretty sure you are using an LLM to generate your responses and longer requests. This looks to me like whatever tool you have used would have added the "fine points" of procedure, such as in your very last sentence, although that I am not so sure of. I think your request here is borderline when it comes to WP:AITALK. In either case, you are not making your point here on your own, and so I am not so sure that you comprehend what other people (including Gooperman) have told you. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This. I thought the request was AI first glance, but I was in a rush, and didn't want to cast aspersions. @Overandoutnerd, AI slop nonsense costs everyone time, and lowers our patience when dealing with it. Please stop using LLMs. Also, CIR to edit Wikipedia in a positive way and be a net force for good.

Also, on another note, wouldn't this be for the dispute page, and not ANI?

Thirdly and finally, your claims for certain pages containing the phrase "main protagonist" have all been reverted (albiet by Gooperman, I admit), and I'm not sure of any pages that contain that phrase anyways.

Overall, no more LLMs. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

User:ThatTrainGuy1945: You didn't look properly. As I've already stated... his "main protagonist" edits were reverted by others than myself as well. Check Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jake Sully, and even Eleven (Stranger Things) please and thank you.Gooperman (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible artificial amplification on Waldorf-related content

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

---

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.

I have observed unusually high support activity on Waldorf-related content that may merit administrator review:

• Several low-interest alterations in the "Science" section of the article have received **hundreds of thumbs-up / positive votes** in a very short period.
• This level of activity is **disproportionate to typical traffic** for these sections.
• The votes appear concentrated and may suggest **artificial amplification** or the use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry).

• Relevant edit history for reference: Waldorf Education edit history which shows 516 thumbs up and 510 thumbs down in a short period
  • Summary:**

The observed patterns may violate Wikipedia policies on **sockpuppetry** or **gaming the system**, and I request an administrator review to determine if any action is needed. ~2026-72852-7 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly AI generated, plus a healthy dose of hallucination... what do you mean thumbs up and thumbs down and votes? IndigoManedWolf (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Pretty sure it means the change in byte size. -- Reconrabbit 23:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Or your obvious LLM? You're describing patterns in features that, unless I'm losing my marbles, don't even exist on Wikipedia. This is like giving a bad review to a cheeseburger you bought at Mattress Discounters. This is unusually batty even by the low standards of chatbots. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, we're just out of Waldorfs. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of Statlers, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Insult by Acoolusername2025 @ Talk:Elliot Rodger

Acoolusername2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see Special:Diff/1336287348 where Acoolusername2025 just directed me to Sybau (shut my bitch ass up). TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll note for the record that I removed the personal attack. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, given the indentation and quote, I'm pretty sure that was directed towards @~2026-46232-4, not TarnishedPath. Not that that makes the comment acceptable. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page. While bad, in isolation it's not enough to apply a block. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Harassment

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

following the Harassment i am receiving from this editor Padgriffin of deleting every article i posted without following Wikipedia pillars ,It's a violation of free ending pillar.

Secondly am still busy running projects as an facilitator and I have a good knowledge of not violating any pillars ,

Coming from different countries I feel like he is using his powers of having so many groups of moving,deleting articles as he cant even make his research against South African notable people

He is even deleting articles of people who are been sponsored by Wikipedia the is a swip project thats runs throughout the world just becuase i wrote about the people of south africa he she doesnt know it doesnt give him her rights to remove my articles just becuase he she doesnt know those people lastly respect is one of the Wikimedia Foundation pillars we cant allow editors which they call death of the people an incident ,South Africa singer johny mokhali was notable during 80s ,lazarus kgagudi was notable in the 70s 80s those are the South African singers he doesnt know about and he cant even improve articles before deleting them ,i feel like am been harrassed by him becuase i cant even edit freely as am scared he she will strike again ,one of the Wikimedia pillars is free online editing but for me in the past days i feel like its padgriffin editing as he is watching my page as a hawk, the next thing am scared about he will.block my account ,administration lets protect other editors am an extended confirmed user with 2152 edits and counting in the past 4 days 6 of my articles that are been there for more than 4 days with other editors eding them they are been deleted ,nominated for deletion, moved to draft without a valid points, we cant expect every notable person to have sources from.books ,newspapers some are having sources from the newspapers only ,some notable person they dont have biographies as they were notable in the 70s 80s which is my targeted audience that ones ,please protect me articles like Amanda Manku, cedric fourie,Matthews Manamela, thabiso molokomme, Johnny Mokhali, Lazarus Kgagudi, Durban taxi crash,Lebogang Boemo, Bravo le roux ,are all been deleted or nominated and they are meeting all Wikipedia pillars Diphaphang (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that you were required to notify the editor of this posting. I have posted a message notifying them. Mfield (Oi!) 03:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Padgriffin is not an administrator and cannot block my account. Also if a violation of free ending pillar means what I think you're trying to say, you may want to read WP:FREESPEECH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

noted that ,what am saying is as for free speech yes but this one ,seems like every edit am doing for padgriffin is wrong ,we cannot delete articles of people or place them into drafts without researching ,lets go back to.this swip project where Wikipedia is in it ,deleting a notable person who is in the projects means that if I nominate deletion on someone from India while am in South Africa ,or someone.from South Africa I dont know about what must I.do I must improve the article not to.be lazy and feel like this editor has way less edits he she mustn't create articles no that's not how Wikipedia respect pillar works ,nowadays she he is watching every single edit I made and its getting worse becuase the only thing he do is to move amd delete ,seems like he want me to stop editing ,he want me to think Wikipedia isn't for some of us Diphaphang (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

[179] Padgriffin has reason to express suspicions, given the contrast between article content and OP's communications, all of which are barely comprehensible. I think some sort of WP:BOOMERANG on grounds of CIR/LLM problems is in play here, along with a serious failure to understand notability issues. Borgenland (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems obvious enough from looking at Diphaphang's talk page that this isn't an issue with Padgriffin - multiple other experienced contributors have been starting threads there since 2024, regarding content which clearly isn't suitable for article space. Diphaphang, ignoring what everybody has been telling you and then making out that you are being 'harassed' isn't going to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

First off, my pronouns are they/them. It's on my userpage, I would appreciate if you showed me the courtesy of respecting that.

He is even deleting articles of people who are been sponsored by Wikipedia the is a swip project thats runs throughout the world

Notability is not inherited. I'm assuming you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebogang Boemo- just because they work for an organization that also has worked with the WMF does not make them notable, and the numerous Delete votes reflect that.

we cant expect every notable person to have sources from.books ,newspapers some are having sources from the newspapers only ,some notable person they dont have biographies as they were notable in the 70s 80s which is my targeted audience that ones

I can barely decipher what you're trying to say here but if a person doesn't have WP:SIGCOV then they're probably not notable.

and feel like this editor has way less edits he she mustn't create articles no that's not how Wikipedia respect pillar works

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here but given your references to your edit count, I would like to note that edit counts do not represent any inherent status or rights, but as of writing I have 21,979 (+1) edits on the English Wikipedia. I am also a New Page Reviewer, which is how I found your articles to begin with.

I don't think you understand the WP:Five pillars given your constant references to them when they're clearly not relevant, and your apparent view that WP:5P3 means that you can "freely edit", as in free speech, when it does not say that.

You have been told numerous times by editors to address the notability concerns, which you have consistently ignored. It's extremely hard for me to believe that the article content isn't LLM-generated given that most of your messages are riddled with grammar mistakes and typos, yet the article content is perfect.

In addition, your claims that you're apparently running a WMF-sponsored workshop is also quite alarming given the quality of your output and apparent lack of understanding of basic policy.

I believe that there is a blatant WP:CIR problem here and a WP:BOOMERANG is probably in order. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

is that what you think ,that i cant understand the policies wow I understand them very clearly ,to you notable people is like the politicians nah its not but well I can its the way you operate i wonder who.are those editors that cried about notability MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: OP has been changing their signature twice in this discussion which I find malicious. Borgenland (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I changed that becuase first signature was my real name so I changed it, MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

your claims that you're apparently running a WMF-sponsored workshop is also quite alarming given the quality of your output and apparent lack of understanding of basic policy.

Their user page states I am a facilitator primary and secondary facilitator at Basesotho projects helping or teaching new editors and recruiting them on how to edit Wikipedia in our home languages so, charitably, they may be more familiar with the rules/norms of certain non-English Wikipedias which they are erroneously applying here. In any case, if they are involved in an official capacity with some kind of WMF project, the WMF probably needs a heads up about this discussion. Athanelar (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

my real name even if its get heads up ,I used my real name and I changed it or I wasn't suppose to change it ? Well if this discussion makes other editors think I dont know English its okay again I feel disrespected but was the last time talking in the discussion as my real name i won't hesitate again when coming to it ,that first signature its my real name and its not up for discussion forgive me if its makes you feel disrespected but its not up for discussion ,Wikipedia if it want my real identity I will only show them ,as for padgriffin I dont like the way we treating articles we must improve them before making any editor feel like she he is not accepted on Wikipedia MOTHO FELA MAKGETHA (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring in the WP:CT/IRP area, including to push a POV on a BLP page

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

I first encountered this user edit warring on 2025–2026 Iranian protests, where they fiercely stonewalled the inclusion of Reza Pahlavi in the infobox, along with other coverage of his involvement in these protests in the lead/body:

1. [180] 08:31, 4 January 2026
2. [181] 18:54, 4 January 2026
3. [182] 10:50, 5 January 2026
4. [183] 16:54, 6 January 2026
5. [184] 09:19, 7 January 2026
6. [185] 09:21, 7 January 2026 - here they removed coverage of a slogan being chanted with the edit summary “Promoting the protests are about Pahlavi is not WP:DUE” (?)
7. [186] 09:45, 7 January 2026
8. [187] 11:32, 7 January 2026
9. [188] 11:35, 7 January 2026
10. [189] 18:49, 7 January 2026
11. [190] 22:40, 7 January 2026 - here they remove a full paragraph from the body as well, telling another editor to “please stop edit warring” (!)
12. [191] 22:46, 7 January 2026
13. [192] 08:26, 8 January 2026
14. [193] 15:00, 8 January 2026
15. [194] 15:59, 8 January 2026 - "Kindly refrain from further edit warring" (!)
16. [195] 21:19, 8 January 2026
17. [196] 07:51, 9 January 2026
18. [197] 10:44, 9 January 2026
19. [198] 11:48, 9 January 2026
20. [199] 12:30, 9 January 2026

At some point during the above edit warring, Tasasiki started an RFC with a question several editors (including me) objected to. Under this RFC two other editors raised their own concerns regarding Tasasiki's neutrality:

• [200] "You're clearly extremely political about this and in no way neutral."
• [201] "Tasasiki, you are continuously engaging in a non neutral manner in dealing with a contentious topic. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:CT, and WP:RFC"

There is also a potential WP:TAGTEAM concern here, as a separate account which was subsequently blocked as a sock [202] was edit warring with the same goals of scrubbing Pahlavi from the infobox + removing coverage of pro-Pahlavi slogans, you can see that case here [203]

Three weeks later, Tasasiki is now edit warring on Reza Pahlavi, where they have inserted a strongly critical paragraph at the end of the lead, notably highlighting a couple of overtly polemic articles. They have re-inserted the content following reversion 3 times:

[204] 14:30, 17 January 2026 - reverts a different editor

[205] 11:51, 31 January 2026 - this time overriding my reversion

-following this they posted a WP:COI warning on my user talk page [206]

-I subsequently reverted again, started a discussion on the talk page [207] noting my NPOV concerns and clear WP:V issues with 2 sources being cited, and responded on their user talk page noting their recent edit-warring and encouraging them to read the WP:BLP policy closely [208]

[209] 10:00, 2 February 2026 - they re-insert the material a 3rd time

-Following this, they reply to the talk discussion "Sourced information belongs in the article, regardless of whether DiodotusNicator approves of it." -- so, refusing to address any of my points and ignoring the fact that a separate editor was the first to revert the content, along with a 3rd editor replying to the talk discussion that the version of the lead without this polemic content "seems fair enough for current moment."

-They also reply to me on their user talk page [210], accusing me of "POV pushing and the whitewashing of Pahlavi's reputation." I find this highly ironic considering I didn't even know the Pahlavi dynasty had a pretender in exile a month ago, while I had already encountered Tasasiki edit warring over Pahlavi's coverage in the protests page.

In any case, I believe it's clear that Tasasiki is not approaching this contentious topic from a neutral perspective, and a tban from WP:CT/IRP seems well justified. DiodotusNicator (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Targeted BLP violations

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

---

An editor has been violating BLP on a variety of articles about Jewish public figures:

• Quentin Tarantino (re-added, arguably worse, after it was removed)
• Terry Richardson
• Andrew Gold
• Harvey Levin (their initial addition was potentially readable as good faith, but they undid - without giving reason - my edit to make it more BLP-compliant, which looks less good in the wider context)

When the issue was raised with them on their talk page, they responded belligerently and with antisemitic conspiracy theories, and essentially vowed to keep doing the same thing. I think this is a fairly clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --AntiDionysius (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Well that was an indef that I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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