Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Bocanegris (talk · contribs) is a relatively new user who from the start has been relying on llms for their editing ("I pick articles either from the recommended list or at random, ask the AI for pertinent rules and policies, and then edit accordingly"). They were first warned for unconstructive llm use on 20 January, for an edit which included nonexistent sources. They received another warning on 24 January for an edit including nonexistent sources and otherwise poor text-source integrity, to which they replied (a couple weeks later) "I'm going to work using the tools that I choose, man. If in future edits you find any errors, just report them, you don't need to warn me. If I get blocked, I'll open another account. You can't stop what's happening." Another llm question was raised on their talkpage on 14 February, to which they replied with a slightly nonsensical post that also reads as llm-written. They were asked again on their talkpage to stop making llm edits on 21 February noting it meant other editors had to do cleanup, and their reply included "If you are tired of fixing errors from new editors, maybe you should take a break from Wikpiedia. I'll let it slide this time, but please be respectful from now on or I will be forced to submit a complain in the ANI."

Meanwhile, despite repeated statements that they would improve they do not actually seem to be checking outputs before they post, they sometimes have markdown, and this comment from 7 February is filled with odd nowiki tags. In a talkpage discussion about the latest llm-generated edit which sometimes vaguely reflects sources and sometimes contradicts them, their reply included the odd "You said: "The Push Square specifically states "ambitious off-road sim-styles project", not the more grandiose "ambitious title to date"." The article said "this is easily the dev's most ambitious off-road sim-styled project to date"", and "I think I could continue but, please, read the articles before contributing to this conversation. Thank you."

In a discussion at WT:AI Cleanup, which was not about their edits but in which their edits were raised including their errors, they replied "About my reply: you have to understand you don't get to give "final warnings" because you don't have the power to do anything about my workflow. If you have an issue, please make an official report. This is happening, man. We will not stop contributing because you don't like the way we do it." There may be English comprehension issues here, they state they are not a native speaker. Nonetheless, despite a month of advice and warnings, Bocanegris is continuing to make poor llm edits and at multiple points throughout this have stated their active refusal to change this. CMD (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. There are no reading comprehension issues, I understand english perfectly. I do use LLMs sometimes to fix my grammar, wording and wiki formatting, but I'm not doing it right now. Full disclousure: I did use generative text for my first edits and when people showed me the multiple errors (especially hallucinated sources) I stopped using that method.

I'm sure that if the community goes trough your issues one by one, they will understand the context. For example, when you quote me saying "I'll let it slide this time, but please be respectful from now on or I will be forced to submit a complain in the ANI" you forgot to mention that it was a reply to a comment that used innapropriate language and a confrontative tone (ie. "I really do not want to keep having to do cleanup after your badly done, sloppy edits. It is tiring.").

I also invite anyone interested in the context of my alleged contradictions, to read the Talk Page of the article RoadCraft. I go point by point explaining the rationale for my contribution. I might be wrong on some (or all) of those, but as I understand from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, this editor should be working "toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page". Repeatedly reverting a valid contribution without a discussion is not constructive.

On a personal note, my experience with the Wikipedia community has been really awkward. I've been getting criticism from the same 3 or 4 people for my errors and zero encouragement for the contributions I make that have no problems. That's fine for me, I have no interest on making social connections here... I would just hate that this friction could eventually get me banned.

In the meantime, unless I get banned, I will continue editing using the workflow that I'm currently using (and working towards getting better at this, of course). Bocanegris (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting a valid contribution without a discussion is not constructive.

Reading WP:ONUS would be instructive here. If added material is disputed, it should not be re-added, as you've done repeatedly. There's no need for a sanction here, but you need to demonstrate that you understand that the burden is now on you to build a consensus for inclusion of the material. You've been reading WP:BOLD but you'll note that it's "bold, revert, discuss" not "bold, revert, bold, discuss." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand. I think it would be easier to try again from scratch instead of trying to reach consensus on my existing flawed first attempt.

Thank you for explaining that to me. Bocanegris (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• I gave this user a final warning on 15 February after they made another edit containing hallucinations, incorrect ISBNs, and WP:V issues . It's to this warning that they replied I'm going to work using the tools that I choose, man. If in future edits you find any errors, just report them, you don't need to warn me. If I get blocked, I'll open another account. You can't stop what's happening. They then also followed me to an article I had recently edited to make a WP:POINT about ISBNs , note the explicit All valid ISBNs in the edit summary which appears to be a reply to my own edit summary revert of the above edit which noted non-matching ISBNs .

They've received other warnings and guidance that isn't on their talk page. After they stated, unprompted, in a WikiProject AI cleanup discussion that they've been using AI to help me research and format articles and had received zero complaints , a quick check of their contributions revealed numerous issues including overt hallucinations , Bocanegris found these perceived problems to be a little nitpicky and then restored an edit containing hallucinated references with an edit summary of The sources check out .

Bocanegris believes that AI is going to replace most human editors and has shown themselves to have little interest in entertaining feedback. I don't believe they are compatible with this collaborative project. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, you lack the authority to issue "final warnings" since you cannot unilaterally take action. Please proceed by filing a formal complaint, and I will abide by the outcome.

Regarding my personal belief that AI will replace the majority of human editors, I haven’t made any effort to conceal that view. In fact, I just summarized it here for anyone who's curious about what you're talking about. Also, I am quite certain that expressing an opinion respectfully does not violate any rules. Bocanegris (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, there's no authority associated with a "final warning" template, so any editor can give another editor one in good faith. It's part of a series of escalating, semi-standard warning templates that can be used, to try and resolve matters before they end up on a noticeboard for administrator attention, which is the goal. Generally speaking, something like a "final warning" template is instead of a noticeboard, so it can be beneficial to get one. The "formal complaint" is the discussion here.

Where authority is required is for specific use of the tools that an administrator has been authorized to use. For example, only users who have been entrusted with these tools by the community can block editors or issued logged warnings. It's important to remember that administrators on Wikipedia are simply editors with a few extra tools. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

On this specific discussion, simply agreeing to stay away from all LLM usage in the future would go a long way, I think, to resolving the issues here. Sanctions are intended to be forward-looking rather than punitive.

At its core, Wikipedia's trying to build the best human written encyclopedia that documents human knowledge. There are plenty of places that people can go to read AI-assisted or AI-created content. That the sushi restaurant does not wish to serve pizzas doesn't mean that there's a problem with pizza. At Wikipedia, we value you and your insight and your judgment and your creativity, and we're just not that interested -- and becoming less so daily -- with that of text prediction algorithms. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I see your point, and I wish someone had expressed it this way sooner instead of constantly admonishing me with so little patience or empathy.

I hope the others involved in this discussion listen and learn from what you’ve said (as I have).

I agree to refrain from all LLM usage moving forward. Bocanegris (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You were not admonished, but corrected, I even gave you bespoke guidance early on to try and help you get up to speed with Wikipedia which you thanked me for then ignored.

An hour ago you changed your userpage to state that Wikipedia will be AI-first ... The era of the human Wikipedia editor is ending , in the past you've stated This is happening, man. We will not stop contributing because you don't like the way we do it. , AI is going to replace most human editors ... I don't see the point of resisting , I'm going to work using the tools that I choose, man. ... You can't stop what's happening. , etc. I don't believe this sudden turnabout in the slightest, especially when you've failed to take on any of the prior advice given to you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said: I agree to refrain from all LLM usage moving forward. As far as I can tell, this resolves this issue / incident "Continued llm use by Bocanegris".

It is of no consequence that you don't believe me. If you have any issues in the future, feel free to make another incident report.

Good luck :) Bocanegris (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It actually is rather consequential, particularly the quote If I get blocked, I'll open another account. which says to me that we have no reason to believe you're not going to just try to open another account to continue pushing your ideologically-motivated AI editing in secret. Convincing the community that you're not going to be a continued source of disruption is the entire point of an ANI thread. Athanelar (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Put plainly I do not believe you, and I don't believe it is likely others will either, but your tool usage is only a part of the problem. You've also demonstrated a continued inability to collaborate productively. You outright refused to change your behavior in normal discussion, and entirely self-necessitated an ANI report be filed by making statements like If in future edits you find any errors, just report them, you don't need to warn me. , If I break any rules or violate the code of conduct, please file a formal report , If you have an issue, please make an official report. , etc.

And only now that your obstinate editing and insistence on a report has begot one do you promise to shape up? Nonsense.

Hopefully an admin will action this individually so we don't need to go through the cban song and dance. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

After I said that, I was called out on the fact that it constitutes sock puppeting and is against the terms of use. I recant that statement, apologize, and agree to never open another account if I am blocked.

If there is nothing else to add, and reminding you that I have agreed to not use LLMs (which is the topic of this incident), I think this is resolved.

If it is not resolved, please continue with the "cban song and dance" or, if an admin is not convinced of my honesty right now, block me. I will accept it.

Good luck and sorry for the inconvenience. Bocanegris (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

My above comment has nothing to do with your prior block evasion assertion, it appears you have not read it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I missread and thought the previous comment was part of yours.

Except for the first sentence, my reply is the same:

If there is nothing else to add, and reminding you that I have agreed to not use LLMs (which is the topic of this incident), I think this is resolved.

If it is not resolved, please continue with the "cban song and dance" or, if an admin is not convinced of my honesty right now, block me. I will accept it. Bocanegris (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I always think there is something deeply ironic and counterproductive about editors who are so ideologically determined to demonstrate that AI is the future of Wikipedia that they're willing to persistently disrupt Wikipedia with AI slop.

What's that one Futurama quote? "We'll show them our peaceful ways... by force!"

AI is the future, bro. It's so much better and more efficient, bro. I don't care that you're all having to constantly clean up behind me, this is the future. Edited to add: While many will undoubtedly try to halt the transition, they will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming into the new status quo Hilarious words to have written shortly before pledging not to use AI to edit Wikipedia anymore. Athanelar (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think about my opinions, I feel that the mocking tone you're using is not productive for a discussion. Please treat me with the same respect that I have shown when responding to the topics in this thread.

I still believe what I wrote. I believe it is inevitable that Wikipedia will be primarily edited by AI agents in the future, as I described in the text you mentioned. However, the fact that this is my belief for the future (which is just an opinion and AFAIK does not break any code of conduct) does not invalidate the fact that we reached an agreement here thanks to a mediator with empathy and patience.

I will no longer use LLMs.

I suspect that Wikipedia's official policy will change sooner or later, and when it does, I will be happy to use these tools again, but for the moment I have agreed not to. Unless you can prove that I am reoffending in some way, I believe there is nothing more to discuss here. Bocanegris (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Since they are so deeply entrenched with LLM usage, despite numerous attempts to persuade them otherwise, it's clear their attitude is one of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Until that changes, I cannot see how a block will not be needed to prevent further wasting of editors' time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  "I cannot see how a block will not be needed"

  You can see how right here. That's how you handle conflict with people with different opinions. Please take notes.

  I will not use LLMs while editing Wikpiedia from now on, don't worry. Bocanegris (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then how come your user page still displays the I'm a Fool and You Should Be One Too Manifesto? EEng 13:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Because I still believe that will happen. When it does, I'll return to use LLMs, but not for now.

  Also, I get you don't agree with me but please don't call me a fool. Insults have no place here. Maybe try to writes some arguments against what I wrote, if you can. Bocanegris (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Obviously a block is required here just for generally being an asshole about everything. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't insult me or I will have to open an incident against you. I will let it slide this time, but this is a final warning. Bocanegris (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Given the above, especially If I get blocked, I'll open another account. You can't stop what's happening. and just a general snarkiness/arrogance, this appears to just mean "I'll try to do a better job at hiding it" Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please read the whole thread before contributing, I already addressed that.

  Also, I don't believe one gets blocked from editing Wikipedia because of perceived snarkiness or arrogance. But if it's possible, please refer me to the document that states that so I can adjust my behavior accordingly. Bocanegris (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  But if it's possible, please refer me to the document that states that so I can adjust my behavior accordingly. We have a word for people who are as obtuse as possible while ensuring that they stick to the letter of the law; Wikilawyer. When a bunch of people are telling you they don't appreciate your behaviour, you should listen to them. The goal on Wikipedia isn't to be right, it's to build an encyclopedia collaboratively through consensus. If you make yourself an obstacle to that process by being difficult for everyone to deal with but Not Technically Wrong™, you're still going to find that you don't mesh well with the project. In other words, don't be high maintenance. Athanelar (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  I understand. I'll try my best to not being high maintenance.

  Thank you for pointing me to that article, I'll read it carefully. Bocanegris (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CIV, though I wasn't suggesting you get blocked for that, rather that it makes your 'promise' hard to take as genuine. This isn't a court of law Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  My problem with that is that I can just make the promise. If someone else doesn't believe me, there is nothing else I can do.

  So, if there is nothing else, I think this issue (title: Continued llm use by Bocanegris) has been resolved. Bocanegris (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for bringing this here. I have warned this editor about this same issue multiple times on the user's talk page. They also threatened me, declaring they would bring me here after I made a recent comment on their talk page about their edits. Something really needs to be done about this issue and I don't think promises from the user are going to cut it, to be honest. Forceful action must be taken. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Late to the party, and I see the CBAN proposal has failed, but I arrived at the user's page after stumbling across this obviously inappropriate AfD and their incredibly disrespectful AI slop comments in defense of it. Their entire userpage is a slop manifesto in support of sloppifying Wikipedia. Regardless of how sincere their claims of quitting AI are, there's no reason to let someone who explicitly promotes the destruction of the project to continue to edit it (even if they do not act on their ambitions directly). This user is NOTHERE. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's definitely possible. We will see what happens with them. I do not know if the CBAN proposal put the user "on notice" or not. Historyday01 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I do not know if the CBAN proposal put the user "on notice" or not.

  Not really. Before the CBAN proposal, I had already pledged to not use LLMs and apologized for my tone. The proposal didn't change any of that. In any case, it kinda relaxed me to see how some people understood why things happened this way. The results of the MfD are also giving me some hope that I'll still be able to contribute without worrying too much about being over-policed because of past mistakes.

  So, to be clear: I was "on notice" before. Not because of the CBAN proposal. Bocanegris (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hard disagree.

  I have a strong distaste for gen-AI and the way it works (and is being used) currently, but individual editors are perfectly entitled to believe differently & say so on their user page.

  As long as editors are not using AI disruptively or against any agreements/bans, then they can believe whatever they like about the future. I don't really care about what people think, I care about what they do.

  Bocanegris used AI inappropriately and it looks like they've stopped - everyone screws up, what's important is whether that person carries on after it's pointed out. It doesn't look like that's the case here & we can't keep holding this over their head forever.

  Besides, if we all have exactly the same views & beliefs as each other, we'll never be able to create a truly great encyclopedia.

  They might be wrong about the future of AI, or I might be wrong. We'll find that out in time, but for now I feel that it's best to let this thread die off unless there are any new developments. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This user has been edit warring for the page Ba'athist Syria, example. The issue here is WP:DUE, plus he says Rv, some of those sources DO infact call it Assadist Syria. I will check every source right now so I’m going to add them back for now and investigate., thus he adds sources without checking them??? I went to the user's talkpage User talk:ErickTheMerrick#Edit warring. He calls me "buddy" and says he will check the sources: Buddy, its been like a day. Chill the hell out. I will check them when I can. then I say: I'm not your buddy. Stop placing sources you didn't even check. Even if it use, it doesn't mean should be included. WP:DUE. then the user says: I will call your whatever I want buddy :). Did you understand what I said? I'm temporarily putting them back so I can check them later. I don't understand. Why should be there unverified stuff here, plus being impolite. Beshogur (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

For the love of God. I will check them. You already reverted the edit. I will check them eventually. You have overreacted like crazy here and you need to stop. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel a particular need to be polite to you because you are pushing this over nothing. I just added them back so it would be easier to edit. You removed them again so why are you still complaining? This is ridiculous. You need to show restraint and patience. You have made this into a bigger deal than was necessary and I ask for this to be removed as this isn't a relevant or big deal. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't checked if the sources support the claim that is being made, and if they are reliable sources, then you shouldn't be adding them. And if an edit is reverted, you take it to the talk page and discuss not continue to push the edit. You'd think you'd know that by now with your block log. Only reliable sources, and only sources that clearly support the point being made. Canterbury Tail talk 03:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ErickTheMerrick, you wrote I just added them back so it would be easier to edit. No. That's not how it works. If a source has been challenged and you have not investigated it enough to vouch for it, then do not add it back to an article. You can put it on the article talk page with an explanatory note. You can put it in one of your sandbox pages. And then check it later. But if you put it back into an article when another editor has removed it, you are endorsing the reliability of the source and accuracy of its use. That is how this encyclopedia operates. Also, do not call another editor "buddy" when they have asked you not to. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

K. I won't do it again. Happy now? Also, if its my talk page, can't I call him what I want as long as it isn't something offensive like slurs? I don't think he showed me respect so I didn't give him it either. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to think you should try to be as civil as you can be with anyone who seems to be here to build an encyclopedia. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages are not sanctuaries from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A personal attack or insult about another editor that would be over the line in article space or project space is also over the line on your talk page. Talk pages are not an editor's private space, but a place for suitable discussions about Wikipedia. While some off-topic banter is generally considered acceptable, using a talk page to say thing about an editor you couldn't say elsewhere is not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe that ErickTheMerrick has not truly changed his tone on edit warring. (See here for the following details.) November of 2024, blocked for 24 hrs for violating 3RR. September 2025, blocked for two weeks for edit warring. October 3, 2025, blocked 3 months for edit warring.

He's also just a bit rude sometimes too. Not grumpy, mind you. I believe maybe a 0RR might work, but he breaks that, and that might be the end. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

He also made a personal attack against Nikkimaria saying you make these kinds of low quality edits all the time and all you do is degrade the quality of this website and its pages. I do hope that you can change and edit better, but after all this time, I’m not sure you will.. I suggest that he be topic-banned from "Socialism (including, but not limited to communism, socialist political theorists, socialist states) broadly construed" because I don't think he makes these types of edits (personal attacks, ignoring consensus, editwarring) on pages that are unrelated to socialism. He also ignores consensus: uses term "Marxist-Leninist state" when it was chosen not be used . This was before his latest block, but he was not blocked for bludgeoning (which he does at Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_“totalitarian_military_dictatorship“_be_added_to_the_gov’t_infobox?) so I thought I'd mention it. He has removed sourced content , when the page explicitly says, with a source, that it was a provisional government (the subsequent occupation and creation of a provisional administrative government gave hope for ending Ottoman Turkish rule) He keeps ignoring BRD and repeated explanations of what an infobox is supposed to contain , . A 0RR would be helpful is his problematic edits only extended towards revert-warring but instead there are a variety of disappointing behaviors that he engages in a specific topic-area, so a topic ban should be more appropriate. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@ThatTrainGuy1945 @EasternShah They, not he. Their preferred pronouns are in their signature. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Just stop. ~2026-13149-89 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

apologies, I did not mean to misgender them Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 02:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Mistergender. You mistergendered them. EEng 01:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on socialist/communist politics, but I'll try my best to scrutinize these diffs you've provided anyways.

: This could have been worded a lot less rudely, but there is a lot of focus on content in that diff aside from that. There is still something of a personal attack, though.

: "No consensus" is a lot different than "consensus against", and I don't see a consensus against Erick's change in the discussion you linked.

Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_“totalitarian_military_dictatorship“_be_added_to_the_gov’t_infobox?: This was their first RfC, I think it's an understandable lack of grace.

: This diff doesn't seem to remove any content, it just formats it differently.

and : This isn't good behavior, and might warrant a conversation about proper behavior regarding content disputes for infoboxes specifically. Has Erick's misbehavior been exclusive to content in infoboxes, and has Erick been made aware of WP:CT/CID? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 262#Laos (where the user did not engage, unless i am mistaken; this is bad behavior especially for people who have a habit of edit warring), the user was involved in both, so they know not to use "Marxist-Leninist" (as opposed to "Communist") but they are adding it back in diff 325 anyway. 324 is not something of a personal attack, it is a blatant personal attack. Previously, this user has also attacked Nikkimaria at Talk:Kingdom of Romania#Government infobox: Just because you don't like an edit, doesn't give you the right to delete it as you please. I am getting quite sick of these needless oversimplification tantrums. Its getting old, so please find something better to do with your time. (implying Nikkimaria is throwing tantrums); Your refusal to the addition of this content along with others makes me think you are acting in bad faith. Every time I make a sourced edit, you seem to flock to revert it on the grounds of breaking WP:IBP when you know damn well that it doesn't. literally assuming bad faith and a WP:ASPERSION, I don’t have time to deal with your constant whining and complaining over and over belitting Nikkimaria. erick says you seem like a vindictive person
If you look at their block log, they keep being blocked for edit-warring and it seems like it a continued habit of this user. In the various talk page discussions they have participated in, they have been warned for bludgeoning (for example, Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?) These things show a weak understanding of consensus and how it is formed.
I think a community block or indefinite block is justified because of this, the editor seems to not understand various policies (WP:IBP, WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:EW) after multiple blocks and warnings. If this user does engage in discussion after reverts, they usually tend to ignore multiple other editors' input. For example, Talk:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic#Government (not dropping the stick after another user agrees with Nikkimaria). This user previously engaged in problematic behaviors on a page not related to socialism, leading to a block. So there isn't a reason to suspect that this user won't continue problematic behavior on non-socialism pages. As I have pointed out, their problematic behavior does not only start and stop with edit-warring, although that does show WP:INCIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which deters consensus and collaboration. This can be seen with their edit-warring: they think that what they write is good and that it should stay. At Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Totalitarianism in government infobox and the aforementioned Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?, they seem very concerned with adding totalitarianism to the infobox which leads to bludgeoning. This can be interpreted as an attempt to fix articles that don't expose and condemn totalitarianism enough, regardless of Wikipedia policy or even consensus.
This leads to the question, has the user been given enough WP:ROPE? Have they not had enough chances? When will we say enough is enough? I would say that they have had enough chances, at least for a while; they've been blocked numerous times, told that their behavior is problematic, have had other people try to resolve disputes (discussions initiated, the DRN filing), been warned, etc. I think that they should be blocked right now, and later a WP:STANDARDOFFER can be evaluated. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 04:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided here, the common thread is infoboxes, not necessarily socialism. It seems that this editor has yet to be informed of infoboxes being a sanctionable contentions topic, so I would disagree that they have exhausted their last chance. Not being informed of the contentious topic is not an excuse, but it could have perhaps avoided a lot of headache. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The disputes may be over infoboxes, but this users' responses to the various disputes above would be just as problematic if not in a contentious topic area. The contentious topic notification is only needed to topic-ban users (I am not sure about this), but the continuous misbehavior seems to warrant more action than that anyway. Also, another common thread is totalitarianism. This is present both when the user argues for the labeling of a country as totalitarian and (perhaps) when the user wants "Marxist-Leninist" to be used rather than just communist. This is because some left communists, anarcho-communists, and libertarian communists may want to say that some states were 'marxist-leninist' rather than their One True Communism which doesn't allow xyz. This is an observation of tendencies off-wiki and I may understand that it may be seen as an aspersion, but I am trying to offer a plausible rationale for a user's behavior. Note that the user classified themselves as a libertarian socialist/anarchist , . Though they removed all mentions of it on their talk page here. If you look at their current user page, they believe that Marxist-Leninism [sic] is state capitalist and totalitarian, being a terrible pervasion of Marxism. and that more democratic and co-operative form of socialism should be implemented. They wanna join DSA, showing that they favor reform and like 1984, which is an anti-totalitarian novel. In its totality, these things show that this user has a motive to have a battleground attitude against statist, non-utopian socialism; their actions, which I've already discussed and as such will refrain from doing so again, show the rest. At the very least, this isn't about just infoboxes but rather infoboxes and socialism. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 05:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, this is not just an issue with disputes between Erick and Nikkimaria, see Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Government (this time mostly between User:TheUzbek and User:TheodoresTomfooleries) where Erick is again pushing for totalitarianism to be listed in the infobox. Consensus there seemed to be that it is a violation of the purpose of an infobox. Again a pattern of pushing for totalitarianism to be added where it may be undue. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 18:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Or there's also this long-term edit war/content dispute , , , , As User:Beshogur mentions in the history, there are also concerns about page ranges and checking sources. We do see the common thread of both totalitarianism and infoboxes here, but source-content integrity is also a concern. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• And they're still at it, edit warring over items they're adding and insisting that they are included (in this instance against the discussion consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to add, when I first pointed out how their comment on their talk page thread was WP:INCIVIL, their reply didn't admit fault in any way, and, based on their replies in this ANI thread, they didn't at any point seem to understand that they did anything wrong or against policy. I recall seeing them say something to the effect of K. I won't do it again. on several occasions about several different violations, and I've yet to notice a significant change in their behaviour.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread isn't the appropriate place to raise this, but I find problems regarding the 'ideology' and 'position' fields of political party infoboxes comes up with a number of editors, not just ErickTheMerrick. It appears as a structural problem, as these two infobox fields are so arbitrary by default that they invite a lot of guesstimating and opinions. As for this ANI thread in particular I find ErickTheMerrick to be an editor that appears to act in good faith, but a loose cannon on sourcing and WP:OR issues and as such repeatedly finds himself pushing a positions on individual articles when edits are challenged. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

From scrutinizing their edits, I get the same impression of a loose cannon sort of editor. I see good faith in there, though, and I do hope a productive editor eventually comes out of this (as I would hope for any editor, to be honest).

I really do think it might be the infobox parameters that are the culprit; it's as if they cause madness in editors. Perhaps more vigilance about WP:CT/CID is necessary? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 11:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• None of this is new, fwiw: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#WP:OR,_MOS:SOB,_WP:DE_and_WP:AGF_violations_from_User:ErickTheMerrick describes exactly the same issues. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• And here's another. Instead of responding here and making a case for themselves, and attempting to do better, they're tweaking their User page with acknowledging edit summaries instead of dealing with the results of their edits. Seems clear they're not interested in engaging on the topic of their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it is in good faith, and I do not mean this rudely, but then that is still a problem because WP:CIR. If one don't understand dispute resolution, the purposes of an infobox, original research/verifiability guidelines, bludgeoning guidelines, civility, etc., and is harming other editors or pages because of it, then that is a good reason for you to take an enforced break from Wikipedia (or the specific topic-area) too. Yet there is also plausible suspicion that this user is here to push an agenda, as I've detailed above. That doesn't necessarily need to be true either, but their behavior needs improvement, in my opinion. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-13552-25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user barely made two edits. Their first one to Political positions of Javier Milei contains this edit summary regarding Milei's remarks about William and Zachary Zulock. I believe that it warrants a "NONAZIS" but if not, I humbly ask you to consider that someone who agrees with such a comparison between a crime and gay men does not belong here. CoryGlee 16:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I agree. They also seem to have a skewed political position on arab-israel matters, in favor of Israel. It certainly warrants a block. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No personal offense intended, TBOTN, but that feels like a pretty slap-dash response. I share the OP's analysis that the edit summary is suggestive of a bigoted and ignorant world view, but nothing in the edit towards the forward facing content itself was disruptive or against policy--the edit was entirely focused on punctuation which did not change the framing of the content. Despite a perennial inability of ANI complainants to accept the fact, WP:NONAZIS is an essay, which the community has consistently declined to adopt as policy. In other words, having social views which depart from the norms of our typical editor is not in itself grounds for sanction. One could argue that repeatedly making polemical edit summaries like the one involved here could eventually rise to the level of disruption, but surely an indef for the first such summary, without any effort at outreach or attempt to educate on project norms is out of proportion to the need here.

And look, I'm not even particularly concerned about this user's editorial rights being preserved; I'm as skeptical as the OP that they are WP:HERE for proper purposes or can be converted to a useful contributor. Rather, this is more about the health of our own processes and keeping our community from developing a propensity for knee-jerk responses and walled garden mentalities regardign controversial topics, where we flippantly and lightly excise editors for having views contrary to our personal beliefs. I just feel that something more is called for here.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have doubts about WP:NONAZIS, on the grounds that we shouldn't act as the thought police, but when it comes to actions, such as edit summaries, I think something should be done. I, a straight man, feel safer knowing that this user is not editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I get it, and I also won't lose any sleep over the absence of this editor. But I remain concerned about the principle. One edit summary suggestive of bias is very weak tea for justifying an indef, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary said all I needed to know, this is clearly someone with an ax to grind without any intention of actually being constructive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In all likelihood, yes. But we typically don't indef editors based purely on our suspicions that their personal views are likely to prevent them from contributing in good faith, before substantial disruption actually takes place. Believe me, as someone with some skin in the game when it comes to the form of bigotry implied here, I am not excited to be fighting on this hill for this particular editor. But blocks for people whom we anticipate to be problem editors merely based on their expressed views are a bridge too far to me. I honestly don't believe anyone would have blocked the TA (and probably no one would have even brought this edit to ANI for review in the first place) had the edit summary said "Milei was wrong", even though that would have been equally as suggestive of a potentially WP:NOTHERE POV as the actual edit summary, under relevant policy.

And I think that should concern us, even if every one of us here finds the "Milei was right" comment to be indicative of bigotry, as a matter of calling a spade for a spade. I get the impulse to say "Let's not get caught up in a WP:BURO debate over someone that is most likely here to advance a non-encyclopedic agenda," but indefs are not light sanctions and are not meant to be first-line responses before we even make an attempt at explaining principle guidelines and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they will adjust better than we suspect they can. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Astonishing that you think this is worth your (or anyone else's) time. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, perhaps my experience with the project's systems suggests larger longterm concerns at stake here than one (probably NOTHERE) user's editing privileges, which may not be immediately apparent to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Snow Rise, I did not request an indef block. That was the administrator's decision which goes beyond my knowledge as to what sanction is appropriate for these cases. As for you pointing out to ...no one would have even brought this edit to ANI if it said that Milei was wrong is factually inaccurate. It was not based on a political position but on a simple crime bias POV. If the TA had inserted a "Milei was wrong" edit summary, that would have pointed to a bias, yes. However, and conversely, a "Milei was right" is not an inoffensive political position. It agrees with the discredited hateful rhetoric that gay men are all Zulocks, as Milei kind of implied.

Again, I have no knowledge as to whether this warranted an indef block. CoryGlee 03:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Enough. Just stop. ~2026-13679-38 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say this, not being an administrator myself, but this is a really silly way for a temp account to be talking on policy matters. Not saying that I'm implying anything, but maybe a checkuser could see if something's happening here? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 03:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you are fairly new here. A word of advice: don’t throw around suggestions of involving checkusers lightly. If you have actual evidence that requires a check by checkusers, take it to WP:SPI. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well put. I agree with you here. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 03:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I know I'm new myself, but based on what I've seen here there are plenty of editors who've caused long term problems that are still given ample WP:ROPE with mild sanctions in the hopes that they ARE in fact WP:HERE and only have issues with a certain topic, other user, etc. As distasteful as I find this user's apparent personal beliefs, indef over a single edit summary feels disproportionately harsh. I don't believe their grand total of two minor edits proves they're WP:NOTHERE, especially when the second one appears to be a correct reversion of a problematic edit. Do we really want to set a precedent of WP:BITEing newbies with an indef for their very first edit? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this. They might not be one of our most constructive editors, but an indef for a single edit summary, even if very distasteful, is an overreaction in my opinion. If they're the kind of person described in WP:NONAZIS, we'll find it soon enough, but we shouldn't block over what might happen.

As any lawyer will tell you, defending people who are unjustly sanctioned includes defending people whose behavior you find morally repugnant, because if they're not given fair protection, no one is. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, but I believe this same principle applies here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I hate +1 edits, but...+1.

I imagine that I would not be very happy with this editor after having a discussion about the underlying philosophical issues, but this is more mission creep. We shouldn't tolerate actual disruptive hate, but we do need to actually be fair. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Frankly this whole thread kind of demonstrates one way in which WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. One editor made one hateful comment and this was the result. If this isn't disruption I'm not sure what counts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never been a great fan of of NONAZIS or HID myself as I've mentioned before although never cared enough to debate it much. As I've said before, I think we should have a very low tolerance for anything affecting the encyclopaedia proper that seems to come from such views, but talk page comments and even edit summaries should receive more tolerance. I think it's fine to make it clear to editors they need to cut it out, but we don't have to blocked them so soon. That said, since this involves a TA I feel this particular case is much more meh. I mean technically yes it means any future edits from whoever is behind the TA is block evasion but practically no one is likely to notice unless they repeat that nonsense. More significantly, it's far more difficult to establish they're actually here to build an encyclopaedia as a TA. So IMO there's less reason to be fussed over a perhaps too soon indefinite block. As for Simonm223's point, well the alternative view is that if we'd just given the editor a clear warning they need to cut it out and closed this thread, there would be no thread to complain about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I don't disagree with you about the tactics of dealing with hate from a TA at all. Tell them to cut it out, hat talk page threads, it's probably more effective than playing blocked-IP-whackamole. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm more concerned with the example it sets than this particular TA. I agree that hatting and ignoring mildly disruptive content from TAs is probably the best route, because there seem to be plenty who just want attention. Shut them down and move on. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't deny there is some merit to your reasoning that the TA context makes for a meaningful distinction with regard to the longterm implications of sanctions. Still, in terms of shutting down communication and shutting that editor out of the community for most intents and purposes, it's a pretty severe penalty. And I think it's worth asking the question whether that one, non-content-related action justifies that response, as a result of many of us (myself most undoubtedly included) finding their apparent stance on a certain social issue to be objectionable. We do, afterall, have a block policy that at a minimum needs to be respected. When I look at WP:WHYBLOCK or even WP:DBLOCK, I don't think I see a strong link between the current situation and any of the circumstances described there for when a block is appropriate, aside from the vaguest and most speculative suggestion that this user was innately set to be disruptive.

I do believe reasonable minds can differ on the right pragmatic call here. But I'd like to observe that in addition to scope and policy creep, process decline belongs on the list of things which large collaborative projects have to regularly address. We have still not as a community fully settled upon the implications for application of various measures in the new TA scheme. My own position I think is that if we're going to start abbreviating process and abrogating requirements of the blocking policy, that's probably something that should be authorized by community discussion and augmentation of the language in said policy, rather than ad hoc at ANI.

At the same time, I fully recognize that the editor we are currently discussing doesn't represent the most appealing case for justifying the effort. Fair enough to anyone who feels that way: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can count me in that group. I still worry about the precedent itself though. To my eye, this isn't about that particular TA. It's about how reflexive we are willing to be, in our current circumstances, to the act of casting someone out of the community at the first sign of maybe holding to views which the majority find to be somewhere between concerning and amoral, before an actual and persistent pattern of disruption has occurred and before we have the kind of context for their objectives, beliefs and behaviours that can only come from outreach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, for once my newness comes in handy! Since I'm still learning about these policies and seeing how they're enforced. Fresh eyes so to speak. TAs grant an extra degree of anonymity above and beyond that of a pseudonym screenname or even static IP, and from what I've seen - taking into consideration that I have no knowledge of "behind the scenes" events from IP days - it seems to encourage socking and disruption, so I do think developing guidelines with more restrictions for them might be prudent. Like perhaps not jumping into moderation disputes to make a single unconstructive comment? But as you say, that shouldn't be used as justification for policy creep when no such guidelines exist. This looks like a kneejerk response that probably would not have been applied to a registered user - especially one with a constructive history, but even a registered newbie would usually be given more leeway per WP:BITE.

Technical question - since IPs ARE still logged and just not visible without the right credentials, is there some reason for using TAs that can just be flushed with the cache as opposed to assigning a permanent anonymized string to an IP, so their history is still linked? I assume in the past there were cases of shared external IPs and a protocol for handling them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not super familiar with the discussions which led the adoption of the TA scheme, but I'd speculate that the idea of having a 1:1 relationship between each IP and a single anonymized string was found to be less practical as it could lead to editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts, treating all content arising from that anonymized string as probably coming from the same user, which would rarely be the case. I think the idea of having those contributions divied up through a local machine certification would also result in increased transparency for most forms of disruption: while you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen, so the TA scheme actually provides increased distinction between edits resulting from the same public IP that were absent under the old system, for a majority of cases, if you follow my meaning. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

While you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen

I won't even attempt to define "most" here, but I think the rampant sock activity proves there are plenty who do. Or use multiple devices, privacy mode, etc. Enough to be a problem. As far as editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts how is it any different than people who didn't understand IPs? I'm not proposing using a pseudo-username, but something like a randomly generated alphanumeric string. The same functionality as the IP system but just masking the numbers so they can't be geolocated. I don't think assuming users are ignorant luddites is an appropriate basis for policy development. We expect editors to familiarize themselves with countless guidelines in order to make well structured and constructive edits - I don't think asking them to read a single page explaining the new format would be too much to ask. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

TAs have been forced through for legal reasons (GDPR, etc.) There have been lengthy discussions over this which you can see if you look through the WP:CENT archives. There has been great resistance and WMF is trying to convince us that this won't be that bad. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I realize that they had to move away from visible IPs for legal reasons, I'm just not convinced that the way it was implemented is a good choice. They could even have done something that would include both the generated IP substitute as well as a session ID. I think the current method is going to continue to cause issues and will need to be readdressed sooner or later. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "this is a big deal because we overreacted about it being a big deal" is all that convincing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed by all the people questioning this block. It takes zero effort to refrain from broadcasting one's bigotry to the world. And the line must be drawn somewhere, right? If in an edit summary someone said "Hitler was right about the Jews" I don't think anyone would hesitate about a block. Why is "Milei is right to call trans people pedophiles" a statement that deserves any leeway at all? Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful. The issue is that if people are banned instantaneously without a CBAN or anything first, it could become a slippery slope. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Evicting the intolerant with speed and extreme prejudice is necessary to maintain a tolerant environment. The fact that nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful is exactly evidence that there is no 'slippery slope' here. This is not an edge case or grey area, it was a clear cut broadcast of bigotry which was acted on with appropriate haste. Athanelar (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that there needs to be a line, and right now there isn't one. If there is, it's obviously difficult enough to tell that it has the same outcome as not having a line. WP:NONAZIS is an essay, and not a policy, and the lack of a policy in this type of situation is distressing. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is king and PAGs should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If the community norm is (as it should be and seems to be) to promptly block those who display unabashed bigotry, then the only thing stopping NONAZIS, NORACISTS, NOQUEERPHOBIA etc from being a policy/guideline rather than an essay is that nobody's taken the effort to write up the proposal and run the RfC. Athanelar (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I appreciate your desire for a more bullish policy in this area, but that's just not remotely how the consensus process works here when it comes to guidelines, behavioural or otherwise. "I am pretty sure that most people agree with me about this essay and therefor we should treat it like community consensus" is not a valid argument for bootstrapping said essay into an effective guideline. See WP:PAG#Role, WP:PGLIFE, and WP:PROPOSAL; a certain line of thought or formal procedure gets adopted as formal community consensus through a meticulous process of vetting in centralized community discussion, not through an ad-hoc vibes check, to use the parlance of the day, when someone wants to treat an essay like policy in a particular situation--no offense intended.

Further, and of particular relevance to your position, there have in fact been many community discussions in recent years about the prospect of NONAZI's being adopted as policy, and to-date the community has always declined to. Although the community has a strong incentive in discouraging bad actors who come here with a bigoted agenda, the community as a whole finds the particular verbiage and approach of NONAZIS to be unwieldy and impractical as a prospective guideline. Even though large portions of the individual statements found in NONAZIS can (in my personal opinion anyway) reasonably be described as common sense, the community still has deep reservations about the knock-on effects of requiring individual editors to conform to purity tests on this or that personal value or belief. For better or worse, the community feels that divisive commentary--from controversial statements all the way up to outright hate speech--are effectively addressed through our existing WP:DISRUPTION model, and that making NONAZIs policy would only confuse and inflame discussion of these issues. That could always change in the future, but to the extent that you believe NONAZIs is not a PAG merely because no one ever pushed for it to become one, I'd like to assure you, that is not the case. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Make Wikipedia:No Nazis a policy?. Some1 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you said what meant there, Phlogiston Enthusiast. A CBAN is a ban, the most difficult type of ban to get lifted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Athanelar. Wikipedia has had a big problem with POV bigots lately (racists/sexists/transphobes who are emboldened) and if anything the site needs to do a much better job at weeding them out. These kind of biases are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. ~2026-14322-93 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well now we should be asking whether the block by The Blade of the Northern Lights is appropriate. The discussion here did not seem to come to a conclusion on that. Personally I think a block is an over reaction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It is an extreme over-reaction. Bravelake (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In the final analysis, I think I have to agree. I appreciate that there is a desire among some in our community to curate membership in our volunteer pool such that everyone permitted to contribute have all adopted certain uniform beliefs and values, beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject. But, per many of the responses in the now WP:SNOW-closed discussion linked above, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the community feels that is not a feasible prerequisite for editorial privileges, nor even even necessarily a desirable or healthy objective for the project.

More specific to this particular case, what I keep coming back to is the fact that blocks are meant to be WP:PREVENTATIVE, not punitive. Even were action warranted here, I'd question why an indef was necessary when a TBAN or other more tailored sanction would prevent engagement with GENSEX topic matter. If I am honest, even if the community had been given the opportunity to decide this matter, I'm very dubious that it would have found that the one edit summary for which this user was blocked warrants any kind of sanction, especially given the complete lack of effort at engagement with the user before hand. But after mulling over the consequences the last week, I'm certain at this point that I am not comfortable with unilateral indefs for users for no other reason than that they hold divisive beliefs.

At least, not in this particular circumstance. There would certainly be situations where more prolonged, targeted, and/or vexatious descriptions of a user's deprecatory beliefs would trigger for me a presumption that the user in question was per se wp:disruptive. But it would have to be something much more substantial than this user's one edit summary. The brand of nonsense that they appear to believe in is a particularly odious belief to me. And despite going to the mat on this issue, I won't lie: I am doubtful that this user will transform into a longterm net positive even if the block is lifted. But my overall position remains that we are dealing with issues that are broader and vastly more important to the longterm viability of the project than just this one user's freedom to edit over the immediate term. Some principles are worth protecting even when you have to hold your nose while doing it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject."

I hope these are not required for participation. I do not believe in Wikipedia or its mission, but I did not think that this would preclude me from editing. Pipoin (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems totally appropriate to me. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This was a bad block. The reason states 'clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia' but the only two edits are a proper application of MOS:QUOTE and , which lacks an edit summary but I'd consider it a good revert as the stable/previous version was better. The Blade of the Northern Lights even reverted the edit with rollback without an edit summary, which goes against WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Schrocat has an issue with civility and disputes. I made an edit to Elizabeth Lyon (criminal) over the wording of a single sentence, Schrocat reverted so I tried different wording based on his revert, he reverted that, so I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section, only to be met with incivility and other behavioural issues at the talk page.

[] his initial response at the talk page I have only minor disagreement with and is mostly from a conduct point. His later responses include [simple your wrong type comment] and when asked to expand on why he disagrees with my reasoning he responded with [and referring to my edit as dross], I asked him to respond without snark and was met with [] Don't even try to take some form of moral higher ground ["horseshit"] and ["Dross and nonsense"] You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It also seems slighlty WP:OWNERSHIP-y as he was the one behind the original wording. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever someone is disruptive and ignores STATUS QUO and the standing consensus, and tries to force something on an article which is disagreed with, they soon start throwing out accusations of ownership? See WP:STEWARDSHIP and don't throw around uncivil and unfounded accusations in future. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

OP, you need to capitalize the "C" in SchroCat within the template at the start of this thread. "Schrocat" has zero edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry forgot the userlinks template is case sensitive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

His response to the ANI notification was to call it ["tiresome"]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Just use the talk page if anything is reverted. Don't re-revert, which is edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• (ec) Honestly, dropping that one just seems petty. Most editors will feel that edit wars and ANI are tiresome. That's not a statement about you; that's a statement about the process. While I cannot endorse the vulgar language, I'm not seeing this as reaching the personal attack level. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the diffs are from the talk page. I'm trying to discuss but SchroCat is refusing to discuss beyond handwaving to a consensus by silence and snark. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:CAREFUL (not commenting on anything else) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how that has to do with anything, the reverting of my edits is not a problem Schrocat's behaviour at the talk page is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101:: I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section. Ah; so edit-warred your preferred version in breach of WP:FAOWN (a policy, you know), and then opened the talk page discussion you shoud have opened after you were reverted the first time (per WP:ONUS, also policy)? Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempted rewording upon an initial objection is allowed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair recollection of the events:

Going by timestamps, we have:

• 2026-03-07T15:06:56 LavaLizard makes an edit, complete with edit summary, changing one word
• 2026-03-07T15:09:18 Schrocat reverts, with an edit summary
• 2026-03-07T15:57:39 LavaLizard makes a completely different edit, with an edit summary, trying to address both their concerns and Schrocat's
• 2026-03-07T16:04:46 Schrocatreverts, instructing LavaLizard to discuss their edits on the talkpage
• 2026-03-07T16:30:50 LavaLizard starts the talkpage discussion, saying they found thw wording ambigious
• And, a few minutes later, 2026-03-07T16:32:08 comes up with yet a third wording, still trying to address both editor's concerns.
• 2026-03-07T16:38:11 Schrocat reverts LavaLizard's edit yet again, saying Per BRD and STATUSQUO, stop edit warring and let the discussion run its course
• Then, a few minutes later (2026-03-07T16:40:34), goes to the talkpage and opens with FFS, will you stop edit warring on this

I detailed the futher conversation in a lower post; it doesn't get any better. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

TO prevent the appearance of bludgeoning, I will only respond here if people have any questions or want a response to anything. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

While I'm unimpressed by the edit warring, it takes two people to edit war - if I tried to discuss something on a talkpage, only to be met with a much more senior editor saying things like:

Your logic is flawed and the change you made even worse

You've now introduced OR into a featured article. Bravo. Feeling good about yourself?

It's a second-rate approach and second rate behaviour

This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work

Well, I can see why this was escalgted to AN/I - with respect to @Phil Bridger and @Crisco 1492, this is absolutely a conduct issue at this point.

Looking more broadly:

Utter horseshit. This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

Is this really a proportionate response to somebody saying, calmly on the talkpage, that they found the wording "in the years following her death" ambiguous or misleading? This is very clearly WP:OWN-ership behaviour, something Scrhocat which Scrocat has an issue with. During their most recent edit warring block - while also calling another editor second rate and defending both their edit warring and the personal attacks by claiming that they were just following... WP:FAOWN.

I'm also struck by the fact that Schrocat is calling the accusation of OWNERSHIP behaviour uncivil, while maintaining that they have a right to call other editors and their contributions second rate. I hope AN/I doesn't lose sight of that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

CC @ScottishFinnishRadish, who specifically warned Schrocat the other month about calling other editors second rate. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Try reading my comments please: I have not called anyone second rate. I have described wording, approach etc as second rate, but have not called him second rate. Let's not let the desire to get someone blocked veer into 'misreading' what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to defend your behavior as being acceptable and content-focused while simultaneously assigning motive to someone else's behavior is digging deeper not climbing up. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have not claimed anything of the sort. I was correcting a misrepresentation of what I did say. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And how else do you think the desire to get someone blocked ought to be interpreted? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Schrocat, I understand this is a bit stressful (and I certainly don't want to see you blocked), and that doesn't always help with parsing text, but how do you describe saying:

As long as you or for the first revert against second-rate shitty edits going for you!) Sometimes I wonder what the point is of producing quality work when second rate editors can game the system and admins back up such shitty approaches. Once upon a time Admins had an eye on the quality of content, not a mindless focus kn second rate dross from second-rate editors who have no clue on how to discuss their third rate suggestions

as anything but calling other editors second-rate? And I note the "I didn't call you stupid! I said your behaviour was stupid!" defense hadn't yet materialized when you were contemporaneously called out for that; you said

Even when they are playing games, being disruptive and acting in a second-rate manner on content the community has already deemed at an appropriate standard? Have you actually looked into how they wish to downgrade community-graded material? How would you wish me to refer to such editors that are not of sufficient standard? I can replace “second rate” with several other terms, if you want to whitewash people of insufficient ability, but I’m struggling to think of what wording you may think appropriate

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't want to see you blocked is dissonant to pinging an admin who specifically warned Schrocat the other month.

Still, at least you've avoided accusing editors of being "summoned from an external website" to this discussion—and being warned against doing so—albeit with a simlar degree of good faith. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi If you'd like to discuss my editing on a completely separate issue, my talkpage is open - or you can start a separate thread? Just to clarify, the reason I pinged SFR is because I was relying on words he said - I can't promise I'm perfect at this, but, when relying on the words of others, I do like to touch base with them to make sure I've interpreted them correctly. That's polite, no? I certainly don't expect him to block - my notification to him, I think, precludes that as a possible outcome, even taking into account that I don't think he's edited much this year.

Again, I don't want to see Schrocat blocked; I want their behavior to stop. Ideally, they'll do that themselves. That's what I want. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI, your editing in this thread is not editing on a completely separate issue. But thanks for clarifying that you want to knock a wall down even as you build it up. Best, —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No, but my editing in a previous AN/I thread or elsewhere on the site, is.

I know you've had opinions on admins blocking Schrocat, an editor you have collaborated across a wide variety of areas with extensively in the past - again, during the most recent block, said that For the record, WP:FAOWN is as much policy as WP:3RR, while pinging the blocking admin, whilst ending discussion about the actual issue on the article talkpage. . So, given that, and given that I think this conversation is veering towards distracting, I don't have much more to say on the matter but this: have you considered taking a step back and letting some fresh eyes have a look at the underlying behavioral issue? I think that might be beneficial for all parties. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling the citing of a policy page "utter horseshit" when the quoting is to rebut perceived selective quoting of it is something I cannot overlook. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If blocks are said to be preventive and not punitive, and civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, how does the community deal with an editor who has not learned from 11 short blocks for edit-warring and incivility? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Trout Two competent and active editors with completely different collaborative styles become random assigned to the same loosely-defined work group. Hilarity ensues. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this problem is confined to this dispute; for example, after the discussion was started, Schrocat has begun to edit war on a completely different article with a completely different editor, while in the same breath accusing the other editor of edit warring - two reverts in an hour, , with the second revert's edit summary being, not an actual summary of Schrocat's edits or reasoning, as you might expect an edit summary to me PLease don't edit war. If you want to use the talk page to discuss the matter, I think that would be a better course of action. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Good point; the editor in question alternates between poorly-thought out brash comments, and lengthy precise encyclopæd'ing. Here's remembering the fallen and the lost collaborators, absent through similar circumstances. Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for pinging me, GreenLipstickLesbian. I rarely comment on ANI, and hesitated commenting here because I don't believe I've ever interacted with SchroCat before, at least not negatively. It's purely coincidental that I made a minor copyedit to Noel Coward while this thread was open, but, as you note, SchroCat's response is concerning, especially if it does represent an ongoing pattern. SchroCat's first reversion of my copyedit with their edit summary "Unsure why that was deleted" seemed fair enough. So I put it back with an detailed explanation in my edit summary. That's when things took a turn. SchroCat then accused me in their summary of edit-warring, which is both a serious and ridiculous accusation, and they requested a talk page discussion, which is a reasonable request if made in good faith. So I started a discussion and was ghosted by SchroCat for 3 days, during which time they were active. I leave it to others to determine if this is a pattern, and, if so, what a solution might be. Station1 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:FAOWN says the following: Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership (emphasis added). This is a polite way of acknowledging that Featured Articles do have owners (contra WP:OWN) and don't become and remain FAs without one. That said, I don't see that WP:FAOWN is a license to abuse other editors. It's well-attested that SchroCat is often rude to other editors. That there are editors he is not rude to makes it worse, frankly: he's capable of working collaboratively when it suits him. Nothing's changed in years. I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Mackensen wrote: I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before.. There is an essay, written in 2011, with a title that is descriptive but not accurate, Unblockables. The title is not accurate because it is about editors who are repeatedly blocked, but the blocks either are short or are undone shortly. They are blocked, but they don't stay blocked. As the essay explains, these editors have fan clubs, including administrators who will unblock them. SchroCat is one of these editors who has a fan club. One consequence of the policy that blocks are preventive rather than punitive is that it makes it nearly impossible to deal with editors who are habitually uncivil but have fan clubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this seems remarkably similar to my runins with SC last year described in my comments at the end of the last ANI thread about them, though the thread as a whole is rather WP:TLDR. Graham87 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the talk page comments quoted earlier sound like performance art of someone satirizing an uncivil editor on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• So where do we go from here? It seems pretty clear their behavior is unacceptable and past sanctions have, clearly, done nothing to help them improve as an editor. Would a permanent 1RR and something along the lines of quit personalizing disputes be worth while? PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd support a 1RR restriction at this point. This has been a recurring behavioral problem for a long time and SchroCat will not change his behavior on his own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would also support a 1RR. I don't think "quit personalizing disputes" is useful; you've have endless arguments about whether something was a personal attack or fair comment. 1RR is clearer and has less scope for good-faith disagreement. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR is the answer, because when disputes arise, it is usually because SchroCat has spent a long time working on an article, while another user comes along and makes changes that make the article worse (or at least do from SchroCat's POV) and he's fed up of having to explain the issues to newcomers again and again, so gives up with an incivil remark. So the reverting itself is in good faith, and not the actual issue. Instead, I think we need to look at some sort of civility probation. As a starting point, consider Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Infobox probation (II) - although the dispute here is not to do with infoboxes. So I would suggest something like:

• SchroCat is placed on probation. He may be blocked from any page (including, but not restricted to, articles and talk pages) for any length of time by any uninvolved administrator if his conduct is considered disruptive or incivil. These blocks may not be overturned without consensus of the community.

As an aside, I would probably never take such action myself, as I have worked closely with SchroCat on several articles and hence consider myself WP:INVOLVED with regards to taking action. I'm simply suggesting this as a starting point to get the thread closed out successfully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I dunno, there is plenty of editwarring that this would not address. Plus I think Mackensen makes a good point about what is incivility and how do we enforce it. I dont think saying this time we are serious and just stating existing policy will make a difference. From what I can tell the only difference between existing policy that everyone has to conform to and this restriction is how it can be overturned. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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

@Khwiser: posted several warnings on my talk page regarding alleged unconstructive/paid editing. So I posted a friendly message here on his talk page, asking him to clarify his reasons. No answer. Instead, he deleted my post, and now he is posting warnings again on my talk page. I think this user is of unsound mind. Please take actions. M. A. Sayem (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As the kids at the home office say, he appears to be off the chain. I am certain this can be swiftly resolved to the satisfaction of all involved. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I've notified Khwiser of this discussion on their their talk page. nil ^nz 04:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@M. A. Sayem Those were not alleged warnings, but your edits clearly show that you have been paid for editing articles of those living professors. You should clearly disclose your edits per WP:UPE otherwise you will be blocked. I see how impatient you are to restore Zargar's spam (where Zargar himself edited that page per the history). Khwiser (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Khwiser, what basis do you have for these allegations and warnings? You seem very certain so it must be clear. You have certainly stepped boldly into posting notices and issuing warnings in an unconnected set of topic areas, quite beyond what might be expected with someone of your limited edit history. This article that you tagged Julien_Jalâl_Eddine_Weiss was created 3 years before your first contribution to this project? Mfield (Oi!) 04:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@M. A. Sayem Can you please explain to the community why you are hoping on different living professors sometimes from Bangladesh to Florida, and sometimes to other western doctor. This type of pattern is usually seen in UPE editors working in a firm and write articles when they get paid by the subjects themselves. I am very much concerned about this. Instead of disclosure on your talk page to keep the matter on one place you came to my talk page and the worst part you restored Zargar's profile without saying in detail, just saying you don't have any COI will not sort this issue out. Khwiser (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mfield Actually I am an occasional recent changes patroller as you can see from my previous edits and I have explained above why I think that Sayem like other Bangladeshi spammers hoping from one continents to another likely after getting orders from these subjects. Khwiser (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The example from Mfield above, Julien Jalâl Eddine Weiss, was created four years after the subject's death... are you sure that Sayem wrote it after getting an order from the subject? nil ^nz 04:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ There is no need to get a direct order from the subject, anyone connected to him can give order to promote his deceased father or grand father. What do you think? I see @Mfield as a dealing admin has reverted my edits so I think I have nothing more to add and waste time here. Khwiser (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You very much do need to produce the evidence that you have after making these allegations against another editor. The community needs to see the evidence of this multi year conspiracy that is so clear to you. Right now it is your judgement that is in question, as you can't be patrolling and leaping to tell established editors they will be blocked without cause. Mfield (Oi!) 04:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

What do I think? I think that, to those unfamiliar with them, WP:Prof biographies can read promotional in nature; that doesn't mean that they are, nor does it mean that the writers of those articles have an undisclosed COI. I think that it'd be best if you avoided editing/patrolling academic biographies, and strike the allegations made against both Sayem and Mfield. nil ^nz 04:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You have explained nothing of the sort, where is any of the evidence for this, as it looks from here like you have over-reached here and are going around warning established editors for actions that way precede your involvement with the project with no evidence. Mfield (Oi!) 04:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mfield I have already explained clearly. I have nothing to do if you are also involved in this entire spamming. Khwiser (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Also your comment "like other Bangladeshi spammers" is totally inappropriate. Mfield (Oi!) 04:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@User:Khwiser Where is the evidence that any of these four long lived articles you tagged are 10 year old UPE that no one else has picked up until now? Maimul Ahsan Khan, Masudul Alam Choudhury, Basil Altaie and Julien Jalâl Eddine Weiss? Mfield (Oi!) 04:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's a relevant discussion on a COI which I declared in the past. I had stated there that "Maimul Ahsan Khan was my direct teacher at the university I attended," whose page I created in 2016 with a different account. I started editing with this account at least three years after that in a completely different field. Nevertheless, I declared my COI regarding Maimul Ahsan Khan. Other than that, I have no connection whatsoever with the subjects of any of the articles I created. I have made my humble contributions in the areas I am interested in, producing more than a hundred biographical articles on academics and scholars, along with more than a dozen conceptual ones. I sought to remain faithful to the autopatrolled rights I was granted and created articles in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, I am open to scrutiny, as anyone is. Project admins are at liberty to revoke my autopatrolled rights if they see that I have misused them or applied them incompetently. Also I do not want talk to or about the user in question anymore, other than telling them not to post anything on my talk page anymore, they are no longer welcome there. To everyone else, do as you see fit. I am not going to defend myself against this. Thanks. M. A. Sayem (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Cyrus Ali Zargar -- nil ^nz 04:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted this inappropriate change to a redirect. Mfield (Oi!) 04:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed a 28K word addition to this article. I'm an expert in The Wonderful World of Disney, and I can tell you that the added episodes are not part of the line up.

Edit in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Walt_Disney_anthology_television_series_episodes_(seasons_30%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1333950106

May I have permission to reverse it?

Thank you in advance. Ralphie425 (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They didn't add any episodes. They just formatted a bunch of references. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As noted, there were no episoides added. They simply changed bare-URL references to formatted ones, which is a good thing. And this is not an issue for ANI regardless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My mistake. This is the edit in question that added the false episodes. They came from an anonymous account. The sources they used do not state the added episodes are a part of The Wonderful World of Disney at all. As well as cross-checking with Bill Cotter's book, it doesn't list these added episodes either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Walt_Disney_anthology_television_series_episodes_(seasons_30%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1329762350 Ralphie425 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Their contribs do seem rather suspicious, they are making 10,000+ contribs per edit, maybe unauthorised bot usage or LLM, need to check the validity of these references to make an accurate guess as to what's happening. rfqii ^talk 06:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this concern is valid, many of these these are hallucinated. rfqii ^talk 06:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have left an AI cleanup tag on the page, warned them on their talk page, and notified them of this discussion (the one who brought this up did not notify them). Pipoin (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pipoin Thank you. rfqii ^talk 01:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

High Priority
In consideration, I think this warrants a revert. rfqii ^talk 07:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. I noticed the 28K contrib, and the editor recieved 4 barnstars in quick succesion from User:PersonFromPoland, all 11 months ago, could we get a checkuser too to just confirm no sockness is present? This user contrib serach shows something deeper: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=PersonFromPoland&page=User+talk%3ARofraja&server=enwiki&max=. 4 barnstars on March 30 2025. Something's up. rfqii ^talk 01:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: They were all recieved in the span of 3 minutes. rfqii ^talk 01:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

User interaction is also telling: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Rofraja&users=PersonFromPoland&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki rfqii ^talk 01:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

PersonFromPoland was indef'd on 21 October 2025, so he may have created Rofraja to evade a suspected block. I will open an SPI for now. rfqii ^talk 02:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PersonFromPoland rfqii ^talk 02:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Pachu Kannan (talk · contribs) has been disruptively adding unrelated content to Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) and then removing it repeatedly in rapid momentum. I would not be submitting this if this is a one-off and nor am I seeking action for WP:UNDUE, but repeatedly adding and reverting themselves before scrutiny can be done by other editors and acting like someone conducting a drive-by shooting has been a persistent behavior of them over a few months and despite promising to hold off after being called out on Talk:Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present)#Rapid insertions proceeded to repeat the same behavior over and over again. While I do not see WP:NOTHERE yet and whether it is too late to take action on grounds of gaming, my guess is that they are treating this article as an extension of their Sandbox, if not outright trolling given the aforementioned recidivism. For example:

For March 10 alone, they have reverted themselves for at least 18 times and counting, including:

The list goes on and on through the revision history, including 30 reverts on March 8 alone. Some sort of brake (not break) or bump may be necessary for them to slow down, as no warning seems to get through to them, and they even tried to wipe the warning off in the mistaken belief that they can do it the same way they can to user talk pages. Borgenland (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Borgenland, I am not WP:GAMING the system. I agree that I sometimes used this article as my sandbox (but all the content added and removed by me were not because of this reason), but I am ready to stop it. Can administrators give me one more chance for stopping my disruptve behavior before at least temporarily blocking my account or at least enforcing a temporary topic ban against my account as I think I also attempted to make some good faith contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2021. But feel free to give other due punishments as I continued my some edits which are not an improvement to this encyclopedia after Borgenland's warning, which I replied and later attempted to remove from the talk page along with another talk page discussion. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

How a contributor with 41,000+ edits could possibly think that using an article as 'a sandbox' was ever appropriate, I have no idea. This looks to me like a WP:CIR issue, and unless we get (a) a clear, unambiguous and rational explanation as to why Pachu Kannan was doing this, and (b) a clear and unambiguous promise not to do it again, I would have to suggest that an indefinite block would seem appropriate. This seems to have been going on for two months on the Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) article, And if it isn't being done to boost their edit count (which is obviously disruptive), I can't think of any plausible alternative explanation at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked from Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) and Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (27 November 2024 – present) where they have been doing the same thing (if not quite as extensively) until we get a good explanation for how an editor who's been XC since April 2021 thought this was a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Andrew is a long-time contributor at WP:ITN/C. Like many editors on this project, he has issues with the quantity of items and balance of topics that ITN promotes to the Main Page. But rather than working collaboratively for effective improvement, Andrew insists upon engaging in WP:DEADHORSE arguments on matters of settled consensus such as the relevance of pageviews , disrupting routine nominations with lengthy tangents , clogging the page with duplicative and SNOWBALL nominations , and offering vague criticisms with full knowledge of the efforts and challenges inherent to addressing them. Many editors have attempted to address this with him directly to no avail. We are spending far too much time responding to the same arguments from him, and it is becoming a distraction for the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 123#Andrew and ITN from a couple or three months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • This nomination of a contract dispute to ITN, complete with sarcastic comments about another editor's unsuccessful good faith nomination and piping the United States Department of Defense to the US Department of War was quite disruptive. Half of the rationale for this nomination (SNOW-closed) featured strange polemical comments about how "ironic" it is for France, Spain and the Netherlands to have the same goals and interests as Britain. Whether any of this is sanction-worthy, I don't know. AusLondonder (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This thread is long overdue, and I thank GreatCeasarsGhost for going ahead and starting this discussion.

One of Andrew's most common talking points, and one that he has been scolded for before, is Pageviews. The previous ANI thread had the sticking point of whether or not the Pageviews argument actually had merit. I have, however, done some thinking and come up with a few reasons why this isn't valid. Firstly, Pageviews reflect only what pages our readers are going to, not how important things are in the grand scene of the world. As an example, ChatGPT consistently features in the top-read pages, but that doesn't mean we should be posting an item about ChatGPT each week. Next, the Pageviews argument leaves out the fact that our ITN criteria does not work based on popularity, but impact and significance. Many elections in WP:ITN/R do not receive massive amount of page views but nonetheless are significant enough to post. Thirdly, WP:ITNPURPOSE states that one of ITN's purposes is to "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Pageviews only indicates what's making waves at the moment, and what is popular. This does not indicate significance.

Some of Andrew's most problematic nominations were of Twitter revealing locations ("X marks the spot") and, more recently, the aforementioned Claude nom ("Claude or clawed?"). The first nomination, POINTiness aside, aspersed that editors at ITN had a "geopolitical agenda". He also made vague threats adjacent to WP:OUTING, suggesting that "Perhaps we should use flag icons to show where we're coming from...". It is worth noting that this nomination was WP:SNOW-closed in just 11 minutes. The Anthropic nom is just as concerning. Andrew piped "US Department of War" out of United States Department of Defense, using the Trump administration's new unofficial "renaming" of the DOD that was done for political reasons. Aside from this, no-one with his tenure at ITN would think that a mere contract dispute, as AusLondoner said above, caused by a Trump temper tantrum, would be worth posting.

I do however believe that Andrew is acting mostly in good faith, and that he is a valuable contributor to the project. Unfortunately, his behaviour at ITN has gone on to such lengths that it is becoming disruptive and wasting valuable time. Therefore, I support no more than a 1 year TBAN from ITN-related pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

He's an active issue-causer at ITN, from what I can see. I'm not someone who uses ITN though. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As someone who does use ITN frequently, yes, the vast majority of interactions I have with him are non-productive. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, dissent is not disloyalty. If anything, challenging the arbitrary and dysfunctional "rules" in the ITN walled garden makes him one of the few valuable editors there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Challenging consensus is encouraged, but perpetuating disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is not. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Then perhaps ITN should actually get "community consensus" for anything it does. The most recent sitewide RfC on the matter found there was no consensus on whether ITN should even exist. I'd sooner support WP:OWN sanctions on many of the editors active there, including a few of the admins. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Worth also mentioning that Andrew Davidson is still topic-banned from deletion activities, and has been since 2021. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So, that's something from 5 years ago, right? Why is that especially worth mentioning? Note that it was the 20th anniversary of my start on Wikipedia recently. Perhaps that 20 years of service may be worth mentioning too? In that time, there has been much water under the bridge and some of it may have been troubled but I am not alone in that respect, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Of note that the generally held opinion on the site seems to be WP:NOELDERS. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with WP:NVC but it's the same idea. But you should try experiencing how it works at ITN where the "regulars" say things like

It should be reiterated that one reason why ITN is mostly just the regulars is because our unreadable tome of unwritten rules causes newcomers to decide they don't want to come back here when they have to deal with the unpleasant experience of being rejected even when, at least from their perspective, they did everything right.
But we regulars don't know "the ins and outs of what is appropriate" either because our idea of what is and isn't appropriate is always changing and is never consistent. This idea that a select few really know how it works is illustrative of one of the worst aspects of ITN...

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• TBAN? I don't know. A warning certainly so. An editor here for more than 20 years should get the hint and know when they are being disruptive at any topic area on enwiki. Dissent is fine, disruption is not. Treating ITN as a soapbox for its reformation by making pointy nominations every now and then certainly not as well. Gotitbro (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro You'd think the several prior times this has been brought to ANI + his TBAN from deletion-related discussions would be enough of a warning to change the way he does things, and yet we're still here. Most of the behaviors that got him TBANned from deletion discussions just migrated over to ITN. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not familiar with the AfD ban, so cannot comment. Perhaps a WP:ROPE can be extended here with the condition that Andrew limits the disruption at ITN (i.e. pointy noms, rambling rants against ITN working etc.), barring which sanctions may follow. Though if it is still refusal to acknowledge the problematic behaviour even now, a rope would also be pointless. Gotitbro (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support 1-year TBAN from ITN and all related areas as proposed by Chorchapu. My observation is that Andrew treats ITN as a game he is trying to win. The snarky misleading headlines, the attacks on other users, and the use of recognition credits to keep score all point to this. The AfD ban is relevant because there, Andrew was obssessively using Google hits as a metric of notability, against repeated advice that to do so was misleading and not part of policy. It's a very close parallel to his focus on page impressions as a measure of whether a page is in the news. I do not believe that our own page impression statistics are a fit source for anything beyond themselves. Here is another recent ITN nomination in which Andrew's conduct was a big distraction - neither the film nor the novel Wuthering Heights have anything to do with the 2026 Berlin International Film Festival. It was pure whataboutery. And when another user correctly folded the tangential discussion up, Andrew came back and unfolded it. It just looks like attention-seeking, to be honest. Wikipedia is not a game we can win; it is a service we provide. The writer should not become the story, and for a long time now, Andrew has acting like someone who is determined to be the story. I do not need contribution credits, or barnstars, or anything like that, for my participation here or anywhere on Wikipedia, and I am tired of everyone's time being wasted by Andrew's idiosyncratic personal quest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Posting unpopular but good faith nominations should not merit sanctions. I'd reconsider if there was evidence of actual incivility, personal attacks, etc. Jessintime (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Many of his nominations appear not to have been in good faith. See the Twitter and Claude noms in my comment - POINTiness abounds. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Claude story was running for days and I listed many sources (Al Jazeera, BBC, The Conversation, DW, FT, NYT, Politico, Reuters, Telegraph, Time, Times of India). The Twitter/X story was perhaps more fleeting but the sources seemed quite respectable at the time (ABC, BBC, CNN, France 24, Guardian). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  What was the crack about Kerala at the end of the Claude story about? Sesquilinear (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  A little bit prior, someone made a nomination for the Indian state of Kerala renaming to Keralam. Here is a link to the nomination. Even though it was WP:SNOW-closed, it was importantly nominated sincerely and without the out-of-pocket jabs found in the Claude nom. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly, I kind of want Andrew himself to explain that one in his own words. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  They were two adjacent nominations and so it seemed natural to compare them. My contribution to the Kerala(m) nomination was to point to some previous nominations as precedents, such as the renaming of Denali/Mount McKinley. I didn't post a !vote because the consensus already seemed clear; the Kerala nomination didn't get a single support. So my focus there was to be informative rather than opinionated.

  I nominated the following item about Claude because this seemed to be a comparatively big deal. The key issue was that Anthropic were trying to maintain red lines in the use of AI, preventing its use to control lethal autonomous weapons. To understand why this is important, see coverage such as this, the question is whether the next killer app from AI vendors will be lethal autonomous weapons systems. This seems significant to me as I'm familiar with the issue, having written the article Slaughterbots years ago. That was set in the near-future and now that future is happening with drone-dominated battlefields in the Ukraine war and AI use in the operations in Venezuela and Iran.

  So, my contributions were entirely good faith and I still think that such AI stories are significant. If people don't like the way I put it then they should understand that putting a nomination together requires some boldness in the choice of words -- you have to pull together the sources and our corresponding article(s), compose a suitably pithy blurb to summarise them and then make some introductory comments as to why this should be posted. When you start such a discussion about a novel topic, you often can't tell how it will go and naturally some nominations go better or worse than others. The point of the discussion is to find out what will fly.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  "boldness in choice of words" is a rather large generosity regarding piping the US DOD to the Trump-branded Dept. of War or writing an remarkably POV blurb (even very left-leaning outlets like Vox did not phrase it so bluntly). Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Such blurbs are first draft suggestions off the top of my head. The ITN process provides for alternate blurbs and so people can and do suggest better alternatives. The admins that then post the blurbs make changes too and they continue to tweak the wording after it reaches the main page. There's then a further stage of oversight at WP:ERRORS so there are plenty of safeguards. See the recent paralympics, for an extensive discussion, for example. This demonstrates the difficulty of getting things right first time. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  This case is more than just an alternate but suboptimal proposal; it's getting well into the realm of POINTiness. Making a remotely postable blurb is the very bare minimum for "getting things right the first time". If the world was ending and a blurb was proposed like that it would never be acceptable, significant or not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Weak support 1-year topic ban from ITN, oppose indef topic ban from ITN They have been acting in good faith, but ITN got to them and now they have done WP:POINTy edits. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)~2026-68406-1 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)^{Sockstrike, see edsum. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)}
• Oppose any sanction. Frankly, I suspect that much of the time WP:ITNC gets the contributors it deserves (which, occasionally, mea maxma culpa, includes me). As WP:ITN itself notes, ITN's own methodology is both controversial and subjective, so although it attempts to have a synthesized set of ground rules, they're not really worth the paper they're printed on: when push comes to shove, at ITN/C when a "controversial" nomination is made, its only treatment is "subjective"—per the project's own description—and that is almost guaranteed to cause friction. The suggestion that their nominations are somewhow low grade is untenable; the requirements for inclusion at ITN are so low that only a minority of candidates are dismissed out of hand. So disputes such as this are not merely endemic, they're systematic, baked into the process. It would be nice if it wasn't like this; it would be nice if that could change. But that's something for the ITN regulars to sort out (unless they can't, then at some point I guess the wider community will have to do it instead). Davidson's views might be consistentlty upopular but they're not counter to policy or guideline, rather, they meet with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This response is sometimes described as effectvely just custom and practice. But by its nature custom and practice can change. It's when one decides one doesn't want custom and practice to change that one codifies it. The lack of codification suggests, after all, that this is the process ITN really wants. Evicting Davidson from this area will only give the walled garden that is ITN an even higher wall. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a ITN-specific problem. I found 10 similar threads over the past 10 years:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364#Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1082#Andrew Davidson's conduct at VPR – topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#ARS Proposal #3: Topic ban or other restrictions for Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Andrew Davidson and ITNC
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal: Require Andrew Davidson to provide a rationale with each de-PROD

As noted above, he's already got a TBAN from deletions. People are also complaining about his behavior at VPR, RFA, and DYK (that one was me). How many times does somebody need to get dragged to the drama boards before we say they've had enough warnings and WP:ROPE (as suggested above) and we admit somebody is more trouble than they're worth? As people have noted, his complaints are not without merit, but he seems to be unable to express them in a way which is constructive and WP:Being right isn't enough. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I had to look at several of these threads to recall what they were about. And even now I don't really understand issues like the VPR complaint, for example, where I have no particular agenda or regular habits and just treat each case on its merits when it shows up somewhere like WP:CENT. Most of these issues were dismissed without action because they were a misunderstanding or over-reaction. I generally get on fine with places like DYK, RFA and VPR now and this shows that the outcomes in those cases was the right one. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what WP:VPR was so I checked that out – it turned out to be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The complaint was that I always oppose the proposals. It was not sustained because it seemed that most people generally agreed with my views on those proposals. Looking at the history since, it didn't take me long to find a counter-example in which I supported the proposal: Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. That's a technical issue which has just about nothing to with ITN and my position was vindicated.

So why is this irrelevant issue from four years ago being dragged in here? Obviously this is mud-slinging, because as Piotrus explains well: mud sticks! ...the longer somebody has been with the project, the more he has contributed, the easier he is to attack, by dragging his past mistakes. Worse, one does not need to have done real mistakes to be a victim here. Often, what is framed as his past mistakes might have not been declared as such by a consensus: it's enough that one editor has called his action a mistake... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am reporting DANGA14 for disruptive editing on the Bajuni people article. I have provided a high-quality, peer-reviewed source (Nature 2023, Brielle et al.) proving the Afro-Arab synthesis and that the group predates the Bantu expansion. DANGA14 is repeatedly erasing this citation and reverting to an inaccurate 'Bantu' classification. They are issuing 'no reliable source' warnings while a Nature citation is sitting right in the edit. This is bad-faith gatekeeping and an attempt to erase modern genomic history. I request an administrator protect the version of the article that reflects modern scientific truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintusmojqy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Saintusmojqy, you should start by discussing the issue at Talk:Bajuni people. If you and the editors who have reverted your edits are unable to reach a consensus, try the other steps recommended at WP:Dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit of yours removed sourced information and replaced it with a section sourced to a chat forum. This one simply removed sources. I strongly suggest you stop editing the article and start using the talk page instead, or the end result will be a block. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for responding I appreciate the guidance on Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. My intention isn't to be disruptive, but to address a significant nuance in the classification of the Bajuni people that is currently being overlooked. While I acknowledge that Kibajuni is a Bantu language,The current classification of the Bajuni as a Bantu ethnic group is technically inaccurate as it conflates linguistic family with ethnic origin. Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, the lead should reflect that the Bajuni are a maritime Afro Arab synthesis with a history that predates the Bantu expansion into the Lamu Archipelago. Saintusmojqy (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Archaeological: Excavations at Manda (Chittick, 1984) reveal non-Bantu, pre-Islamic settlements and maritime trade structures that predate the arrival of Bantu agriculturalists. Genomic: A 2023 study in Nature ("Entwined African and Asian genetic roots") confirms that the founding populations of the Swahili/Bajuni corridor have a 50-70% Persian/Arab genetic signature dating back over a millennium.

• Ethnographic: Vinigi Grottanelli (Pescatori dell'Oceano Indiano, 1955) identifies the "Original Clans" of the Bajuni as having Yemeni and Hijazi origins, distinguishing them from the riverine Bantu groups.

• Linguistic: While Kibajuni is a Sabaki Bantu language, Nurse & Spear (1985) clarify that the Bajuni identity is a maritime synthesis, not a singular Bantu race.

I am requesting the article lead be updated to "Afro Arab maritime people" to reflect these peer reviewed sources. Saintusmojqy (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to sign my previous post. Adding signature now. Saintusmojqy (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for the technical errors in edits [427] and [428]; as a new editor, I inadvertently removed existing citations while attempting to add the Nature (2023) study. I have now moved the discussion and the peer-reviewed evidence (Nature 2023, Chittick 1984, Grottanelli 1955) to the Talk page for community review and will refrain from further direct edits to the article until consensus is reached. Saintusmojqy (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You actually haven't yet. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I also suggest going to the talk page using what you put below in another ANI thread that was quickly closed as a content dispute. Please also take care that it's not AI. Your LLm seems to be hallucinating a bit. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 02:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

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

I am reporting User:Gotitbro for edit-warring and WP:GROUND-type behaviour at Muridke (and related articles), and for repeatedly failing to seek consensus at Talk:Muridke despite being asked several times and despite there already having been discussions on the same issue elsewhere. The dispute is about content relating to Markaz-e-Taiba, currently in the Muridke#Landmarks section, which has been disputed for a long time.

On the edit-warring side, the content was removed in October 2025 and they did not challenge that removal for months. Then two days ago they restored it , even though they were fully aware it was disputed. This is also not the first time they have restored disputed content without first gaining consensus.

There was already discussion about Muridke at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_11#h-Recent_removals-20250531181300. Even though they were asked to move that discussion to Talk:Muridke, they continued reinstating the material anyway, including here:.

As for consensus, the discussion at the linked talk page leaned generally against the inclusion of the content. At the very least, there was clearly no consensus to include it (which has been pointed out by other users). Despite that, they have continued to push for the content to stay in the article. There have also been further attempts at Talk:Muridke to get a clear consensus, but they do not seem willing to properly engage with that process. Since the content is disputed, WP:ONUS lies on the editor seeking to include it. At minimum, that discussion showed the material remained disputed and that there was no clear consensus for reinstating it at Muridke.

For disclosure, I have had disagreements with this user before on other topics. I am aware of WP:GAME and other issues. However, this report is not about the underlying content dispute itself, which is an entirely separate issue. My issue here is with the repeated restoration of disputed content without consensus, and their continued refusal to resolve the matter properly through discussion, while essentially taking ownership of the article, reiterating my point regarding WP:GROUND-behaviour. Gotitbro has been warned about edit-warring and has also been advised to follow WP:BRD previously, at arbitration so a discussion should have generally followed rather than to continue edit-warring. نعم البدل (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am glad this has been brought here for the misrepresentation is as certain as they come.

ANI may not get into content disputes but since this is about allegations of editorial behaviour let us chronologize the edit history of the article concerned :

• Intial addition of content by Anand2202:
• Further additions by Truth Layer 123:
• Blanking of the content by نعم البدل:
• My revert of the blank:
• Blanking by an IP:
• Reversal of the IP blanking by TonySt:
• Another revert of the IP blanking by Kautilya3:
• Discussions at different forums.#
• Multiple copyedits by different editors following those discussions.
• Recent partial blanking of the said sourced content by a newly created account which was reverted by me and followed by out of the blue restoration (and subsequent edit warring without regard to the previous discussions) of that blanking by نعم البدل.

# Discussions: نعم البدل failed to convince any editor that their blankings were justified at Talk:Muridke, Talk:Lashkar-e-Taiba/Archive 1#Muridke (where they had been reverted by Ritwik Deuba), the forementioned Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 11#Recent removals, they subsequently took it to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Muridke#Landmarks with much the same result. After all this to still claim any iota of ONUS/BRD and lack of consensus months later and to edit war over that baseless assertion is what is explicitly disruptive.

Note: The latest blanking concerns WP:THEDIPLOMAT, clearly a WP:GENREL, which نعم البدل disputes but has also failed to make any case there. Gotitbro (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: I was trying to keep it civil without bringing in other users, and without making it a content dispute, but okay.

let us chronologize the edit history of the article concerned – Lets:

• From 2005 till 2019 the article contained a one liner Muridke contains the operational headquarters of the banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba. – and nothing this. Even this was removed on a several occasions during this period, but following this it was removed several times by @Yamaguchi先生:. My first edit to the article was at here on April 2025, before the entire Pak-Indo conflict had even begun!
• So essentially from 2005 till 2025, a period of 20 years, the article was devoid of any significant mention of Markaz-e-Tayyaba, with several removals - indicating that there was indeed opposition to it being included.
• After @Anand2202 and Truth Layer 123: (who by the way, turned an article about a town into an article about a terrorist hub, and let's not kid anyone there is no way on earth that is WP:NPOV) – there was a revert by a new user, that was the first revert, not mine!
• @Kautilya3: Then reverted that edit, before I objected to that entire section. Technically, I was the third user to dispute that section. It was also reverted by several IPs after me.

  Kautilya3 had also quietly made Markaz-e-Taiba a redirect to Muridke.

It's at that point that the entire article was being discussed at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_11#h-Recent_removals-20250531181300, which you conveniently seem to leave out, considering most of the discussion happened there, and not at Talk:Muridke. Despite the content being disputed, it wasn't you or Katilya3, or the other users who were keen on discussing it at Talk:Muridke. I started the discussion, .

Refer to: My issue here is with the repeated restoration of disputed content without consensus, and their continued refusal to resolve the matter properly through discussion, while essentially taking ownership of the article, reiterating my point regarding WP:GROUND-behaviour.

Now on the other talk page, the following users had this to say:

• @Orientls: Gotitbro You should refrain from making these claims of an existing consensus when there is none, only when your preferred content is removed, this is called status quo stonewalling and not a valid reason to oppose any changes to the article. نعم البدل is correct that following the crackdown by the Pakistani government, many of the buildings affiliated with LeT have been under the Pakistani government control[12] for a while now
• @SheriffIsInTown: @Gotitbro We need to move the discussion about Muridke to that article. The academic sources currently cited are between 8 and 23 years old, so we cannot use a definitive "is" based on them. I believe @نعم البدل has already provided more recent news sources confirming that the organisation is defunct. Given that only older sources attest to its existence while newer sources confirm its defunct status, we should use a definitive "was"—unless we have credible, recent sources indicating that it still exists.

While there were several discussions, I vaguely remember there being another big discussion on this article that has been presumably been merged, where @Wareon: also expressed his opinions on this. Funnily enough, you stated this in this edit summary:

• discussion remains ongoing, please particpate there - Yet, yourself and the other editors continued making edits to the page, without discussing it on the talk page – but clearly that was not an issue for you? So for 20 years, no elaborate mention about Markaz-e-Tayyaba, but the war pops off, and we have 4 editors who completed changed the subject of the article in a couple of days, while ignoring any discussions about it or any disputes about it?

The point that I'm trying to make is that you knew that it was disputed content, and assumed that you could get away with reverting @Mehboob Younas:'s edits, which by the way you reverted without any explanation. There were even attempts at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_11#h-Recent_removals-20250531181300 and elsewhere to compromise, but again like I said - nor you or @Kautilya3: weren't moving from your point, and weren't willing to consider any opposing views, hence WP:GROUND.

So you can try to turn this into a content dispute – it is not. It's the fact that any sort of discussion that seem to oppose your views on this topic are being shot down by you, while you also imply that there is somehow a consensus for it, when there isn't. نعم البدل (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why you think WP:CANVASSING editors who haven't edited the article (only one of whom has ever copyedited it) will make your case. You can continue to discard all subsequent discussion which addresses all of those points but others won't.

"assumed that you could get away with reverting @Mehboob Younas:'s edits". Certainly not being very civil in line with your comment above. Reverting a newly created account blanking sourced content should be the least of anyone's worries.

Considering you wrote this tome without addressing how any of it is ANI actionable, renders it as meaningless as your opening comments. Gotitbro (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: editors who haven't edited the article (only one of whom has ever copyedited it) will make your case – You have the audacity to accuse me of canvassing, really? Was it my idea to keep the discussion at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_11#h-Recent_removals-20250531181300 instead of Talk:Muridke or was it yours? Four users attempted to keep the discussion at Talk:Muridke, including myself, Kautilya3, and SheriffIsInTown, and Tony[?] at every point, you kept the discussion on the other talk page, see your own comments

• The discussion continues at the 2025 conflict page (at Talk:Muridke)
• The discussion can continue here. (Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict/Archive_11#h-Recent_removals-20250531181300)

So before you accuse anyone of badfaith, remember this (as usual) was your decision, and since majority of the discussion took place there, I don't see how you can think that discussion can be left out, or the users who partook in that discussion. As I mentioned, the other editors were keen on editing the article despite being aware of the ongoing discussion, otherwise with the same logic, you, too are canvassing. Like I said, I was trying to keep it civil without bringing in other users, and without making it a content dispute, but okay.

نعم البدل (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You certainly haven't been WP:CIVIL ("get away", "audacity").

The editor's were pinged by me to let it be known that their diffs are being cited in which context, but your pinging of editors who barely/never participated in those dicussions or edited the article at all (e.g. Wareon) is certainly questionable.

Anyhow, your comment is again about a content dispute despite protestations to the contrary. Nothing for ANI to do here, though cannot say the same about your comments or edits. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, civility. How many times have you been reprimanded for edit-warring in the past? Arbitrations? You can scrutinise my edits all you want, I've attempted to solve this though discussions several times. I've initiated those discussion and had the decency to not edit the disputed sections, and most of the times I've WP:DROPTHESTICK. When you reverted it, without reason and no discussion, I asked you to point out to me where consensus was gained, you haven't pointed it out, just like you avoided gaining a consensus in previous discussions.

Quick to revert but not in discussing. نعم البدل (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

But you haven't dropped the stick, for you chose to edit war over the blanking of sourced content by a newly created account rather than start a discussion anew if you had problems with previous ones which certainly did not result in any consensus for removal. To think that issues maybe re-raked every now and then, out of process and without intimation is certainly not how you go about it. Have a problem with a source? take it to RSN; problem with NPOV?, take it to NPOVN (that was done and nothing came about for your blanking); want uninvolved opinions?, WP:DRN (or WP:3O) might help. But to take disputes to ANI, you better buckle up beyond a content dispute, certainly not done here. I cannot guide you through previous discussions if you want to simply ignore the vast majority them. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Re [The Diplomat source now being blanked]: Beyond the discussions listed above. This source had been also been discussed at [India–Pakistan conflict/Archive 10], resulting in clear consensus for inclusion. Gotitbro (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

• if you had problems with previous ones which certainly did not result in any consensus for removal – As I've already mentioned, this isn't a content dispute. This is about you taking charge on the relevant topics, and acting like the authority and deciding what goes and what doesn't. This has been a pattern of yours, see WP:GROUND. I've said it before, let's hold a consensus of any kind - start an RFC or anything. That is what Wikipedia is built on.

I don't believe for a second that you didn't imagine that a revert which would re-add disputed content wouldn't be contentious.

I also find it amusing that you say that not result in any consensus for removal – that's a different way of saying that you couldn't achieve a consense for it's inclusion, which means the removal is justified, as per WP:ONUS, which states:

• The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content. – You did not achieve any sort of consensus for its inclusion. Rather you have this threating tone, while you edit-war in an attempt to shut any discussion down. This was the most recent edit summary:

  you are already on WP:3RR and I would suggest you desist now. Where is the civility in that? You've reverted it despite it being objected by two users within the 2-day period, and you had the fourth and last revert, it was just didn't violate WP:3RR because it wasn't in a 24-hour period. That is my issue.

I've said it before, if there was a consensus for its inclusion at Muridke, then point to it - but you know there isn't. If you hold one and can achieve a consensus then so be it, then I'll move onto the content dispute. But the fact is you're not attempting to hold a proper discussion of any kind, while attempting to continuously include disputed content. 4 users had suggested keeping the Muridke discussions at Talk:Muridke, yet because you wanted to keep it at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict, the discussions became excessive, and there was no proper resolution, and certainly no consensus for it's inclusion. نعم البدل (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Your flawed understandings of onus, consensus and other policies and guidelines does not and will not make this content dispute suddenly liable for ANI.

RfC isn't the single window mechanism through which it [consensus] is achieved. The onus is not retained ad infinitum after having been raised at multiple forums, edited on by multiple editors [with no one blanking it] and resulting in retention at all forums and other articles. Other admins/editors can further clarify this and chime in.

Start an RfC if you so want, take it to DRN if you want, that is entirely your initiative. But suddenly endorsing newly created disruptive accounts blanking RS, that is certainly not going ahead. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"if there was a consensus for its inclusion ... then I'll move onto the content dispute"

There are greater problems here I see (WP:CIR) with regards to understanding basic P&G: dispute over inclusion is also a "content dispute". Gotitbro (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, just restarting the dispute at ANI is definitely very helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Austria#Missing abused in danger childden Moxy🍁 15:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) A better course of action would probably be other channels, like oversight. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 15:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On the other hand, based on technical evidence, it's possibly a known LTA. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can't see much besides their talk page message on Austria, plus the usual stuff that auto-confirmed editors can see. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 16:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:TAIV tool can show you the underlying IP addresses used by temporary accounts. The IP used by this TA is in an ASN that has seen extensive LTA activity, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ChronicleBooks885. The offending range has already been blocked a few weeks ago, so this thread can be closed as resolved. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)