Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive380

Proposal: Topic-ban Willywilly1111 from the Moldova topic area, broadly construed

Willywilly's responses and demeanour above suggest less a willingness to collaborate and more a desire to dictate; in conjunction with what I can see on Talk:Răcăria I think that Willy should spend some time in different topic areas they don't have as strong an opinion about for a little while. I am proposing an indefinite topic-ban for Willywilly1111 from the Moldova topic area, and this is, as I noted above, a bare minimum. Whether or not this should strictly be a community sanction or as Arbitration enforcement I will leave open. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 23:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's sufficient, but it's necessary, so I Support this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano Where is my desire to dictate? Removing a page 6 times without a discussion is called collaboration and not more a desire to dictate? Or do you want to say that the rules were not ignored? It was only an editor here who made the nomination. Or is a census not a primary source?

"I am going to collaborate now, I declare that census is not a primary source, because I say so, if you do not agree, that is your problem. I am right"- It sound ridiculous, don't you think? How do you respond to something like this is in a right demeanour? Willywilly1111 (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC

• Support as a first-line action; although I worry that this won't address the core issue I really hope it will give them the opportunity to step back and refocus.

They still refuse to accept that they've been edit warring, show strong ownership of articles and it looks like they've been calling other editors "AI" and "bots" as a form of attack/retaliation on multiple pages - here, at the Teahouse and again at the edit warring noticeboard.

I doubt that they genuinely thought they were dealing with any form of automation, I believe that they made this claim to disparage their opponents by inferring they aren't consciously thinking & acting robotically. To me, this is a form of personal attack.

Both the AFD and this discussion are being dominated by Willywilly1111 replying to virtually every comment (usually with the same points) and very little concession.

I don't see any point where they've clearly admitted they were wrong either. Yes, the article was moved/merged six times, but that doesn't change the fact that Willywilly1111 edit warred, is personally attacking other editors & overwhelming discussions with replies to pretty much every post by someone who disagrees with their opinion.

As an aside, we have confirmed AI-use in their appeal and sourcing . Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Rescinded in favour of the below Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, an admin above left a comment that I agree with. @Chaotic Enby Wrote that both editors were edit warring, and I believe that is true. Biruitorul never acknowledged that his behavior was simply wrong and not how the topic is dealt with.

I apologize if repeating that removing an article ignoring the rules 6 times is wrong, because nobody listened to me. I also do not think that using AI to quickly fix grammar is prohibited on Wikipedia, as long as it has nothing to do with the content. I use a Chrome extension to automatically proofread the text. It is very convenient. Feel free to try it.

You support a topic ban, can you demonstrate any bad faith edits made by me on the topic rather than asking for a discussion on it? Rebuttal and discussion are allowed at the AfD. I was told I am allowed to participate and engage. I believe replying to someone making false claims regarding the article I wrote makes perfect sense. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The thing is we have no way of knowing that using AI to quickly fix grammar has nothing to do with the content, because AIs hallucinate and change things even when told to 'just fix the grammar'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Just for fun, I asked Gemini (both the Fast and Pro versions) to "fix the grammar in this sentence". Each suggested three versions ranging from the closest to the original to the biggest rewrite. The latter were as follow:

There is no way to ensure an AI stays true to the original content; despite being told to 'just fix the grammar,' hallucinations can lead the model to inadvertently rewrite the narrative. — Gemini 3 Fast

We cannot guarantee that using AI to correct grammar will leave the underlying content intact; AI models frequently hallucinate and alter meaning even when explicitly told to focus solely on grammar. — Gemini 3.1 Pro

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger @Chaotic Enby I agree that AI can hallucinate. I have seen it hallucinate many times. But i think it is fine using it for formatting. As long as it makes sense, and a real person is actually reading it. I am not making claims like it is 100% accurate. For instance, I noticed that Claude is usually better with formatting historical text. I tried Gemini, but did not like it. It is bad for writing, at least based on my personal experience. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I agree with changing content too. It happens. When I need something precise, I always add "do not change my context" to the prompt. I have noticed it makes a difference. I recommend trying it. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I recommend learning how to write properly using your own hands. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I am not saying that it is not important. But you know that some people are dyslexic and may have different difficulties using different devices, and many other things. I think productivity tools are useful. Anyway, I am not sure how that is related to my report. It is just for a broader discussion. I am not against any tools. Willywilly1111 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I prefer human typos to AI writing; if I want to talk to an AI, I can talk to Gemini. I prefer someone waiting to be at a proper keyboard again to someone quickly typing through an AI on their phone. And it's an encyclopedia after all; building an encyclopedia is not something everyone can participate in, and it does generally require some degree of writing skills. The whole concept of encyclopedia creation is inherently ableist to a degree. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

But you know that some people are dyslexic and may have different difficulties using different devices, and many other things. And for literal decades these people successfully edited Wikipedia (and in many cases, still do) before the current crop of LLMs were created. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger all your points make sense. And yours too @ToBeFree. I am of the opinion if a tool makes a person's life easier, helps them with something they struggle with, makes them better at something, they should use it. That is part of the progress. I am not saying that a person with no knowledge about, let’s say, a new drug for the flu should tell ChatGPT “write me a Wikipedia article about drug X” and then publish it. That is absolutely not okay and should not be a practice for an encyclopedia. Willywilly1111 (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, my concern was that I couldn't see any clear acknowledgement of the edit warring so I supported the proposal in order to prevent it from reoccurring. I also felt that your posts calling other editors AI wasn't ideal either.

If you understand that edit warring isn't acceptable then I'm happy to rescind my support - blocks & bans are preventative, so I'm just looking for evidence that it won't happen again (check out this essay if you haven't already).

If someone takes an action that you don't agree with - whether rightly or wrongly, we have plenty of processes to resolve that without edit warring.

• Can you please read through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution page and just give me a very quick paragraph on how you would have approached this same situation differently had you known about it at the time? If you can do that I'll be happy to reconsider.

BTW The mention of AI at the bottom of my post wasn't too important (hence it being at the bottom) but I felt it was a little ironic considering your earlier posts. Plus, as The Bushranger mentions, AI can go rogue so I'd honestly avoid it entirely until you're a bit more experienced - you'll need to be able to tell whether it's changed something to the point that it's negatively impacted your edit & that's much harder to do than you'd think. Better be safe than sorry! Plus taking extra time to review your work is never a bad thing IMO. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I find it rather difficult to believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria was proposed in good faith. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Biruitorul listen, I am allowed to made a nomination for a page that has zero sources. I made a detailed assessment, and made a polite and respectful nomination. This page has zero secondary sources. You refused to show me any secondary sources to prove your point and reach a consensus. This is a way people have discussion on wikipedia, so let's have it in a civil way. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Point might be a good read right now. Also the box on the WP:AFD page that asks you to read WP:ATD prior to nomination. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

for a page that has zero sources this is a hilarious blatant lie, not only because you can clearly see the article has indeed sources, but also because the content in question including its sources was written by Willywilly1111 themselves, having been copied and summarized from one article to another by another editor.

What this user is arguing is that because the sources deal with the village, they don't deal with the commune it is a part of. Pure nonsense. Super Ψ Dro 23:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus I was respectful to you. I provided a source assessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R%C4%83c%C4%83ria

I read the WP:ATD rules, and made assessment. If my statement that the "article has zero sources" is a hilarious blatant lie, can you demonstrate the lie?

All I see is primary sources, only raw census, and not even one mention of the "commune". Am I wrong? What part of it is blatant lie?

I will acknowledge that I am wrong immediately if you show me one source I was mistaken about in the assessment. I am inviting everyone to take a look at and tell me what I got wrong. Willywilly1111 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Of course I understand that "edit warring isn't acceptable". I made practically no edits on English wikipedia, and my only page I translated got removed 6 times. I think it is a normal reaction. I asked for help at the tea house and did not know how to address it, and an editor told me to make a report here.

You made edits on another page I translated and want to improve. I just did not get the time for it. It requires time.

I do not think it is a bad page. Gheorghe Râșcanu I translated it as it was, and will provide better sources. It is a well known historical figure from the 19 century. A city and district were named after him. I was surprised nobody translated it before. I do not think it would harm anyone on the topic Moldova, to have an article translated about a person a region in Moldova is named after. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet To answer your question: Had I known about the dispute resolution process at the time, I would have handled it differently by slowing things down and moving the conversation to the talk page instead of continuing to revert edits. I tried solving it my own way here, on the talk: User talk:Biruitorul#Răcăria, Rîșcani I apologize that was not a proper request.

I would have explained my concerns about the lack of reliable secondary sources more clearly and tried to get other editors involved earlier, rather than trying to resolve it directly through editing. I was struggling to even save my edits, due to the edit conflicts.

If we still could not reach agreement, I would have asked for outside input through a third opinion or a noticeboard. On April 15, before creating the page, I asked advice at the tea house, on how to proceed, and that was a mistake. A person there told me to keep it separate. I was not aware that was a wrong place to ask.

The main difference would have been focusing on discussion and consensus building from the start, instead of letting it turn into back and forth editing. Willywilly1111 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's a good answer. You've pinged me a few times across different pages but I need to hold off on making any amendments for the moment. Your new AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria has left me a little confused, I need to read through everything to fully understand what's happening in order to make a fair decision. Please bear with me. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Count me in; this is becoming tiresome. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from Moldava and hope that is enough. This is indeed tiresome.

Donald Albury 22:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support. All of this is the result of an insanely hysteric and stubborn reaction. This dispute has resulted on two AfDs, discussions on multiple user talk pages and forums, three unblock requests within 3 days, and it has involved a dozen editors by now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria in particular is a disruptive reaction to the other AfD. This user does not mind breaking years-long common practice so their prefered text is kept. This has been a huge time sink for everyone and it needs to end. Super Ψ Dro 23:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  As a note. This editor wrote that my factual source assessment is a lie, he wrote that "zero sources this is a hilarious blatant lie," However, when I asked him to demonstrate one sources that I got wrong, he failed to do that. Now he calls this "insanely hysteric and stubborn reaction".

  Can an experienced admin place take a look? I made a full assessment of all source in the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria

  I also said that I would immediately acknowledge it if I got at least one source wrong.

  Is the factual source assessment “hysteric,” or is it hysterical to call it a “lie”? This looks more like actual bullying to me. Willywilly1111 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Incessantly replying to literally everyone in this thread is the absolute worst thing you could be doing at this point in time. Relitigating the content dispute is irrelevant here because this matter is about user conduct. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 01:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano, I may not know the rules, but this comment about content was made on this matter that we are discussing here, just on top of your messages, not on the AFD. But this individual accused me of making a "hilarious blatant lie" source assessment here. Nobody is going to go and check, so what is the point then attacking me here in his way? I should not reply and say that this statement is false? That is a big accusation to make, don't you think?

  People would actually assume I make a wrong source assessment, as he tried to portray me that way. Willywilly1111 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

To explain it again: Willywilly1111 states the article has no sources (lie), which I find particularily ironic considering they added those sources , later being merged and summarized into the other article by another editor . What they mean is that sources that deal with the villages do not deal with the commune they're part of . So "there are no sources about the commune". An absolutely nonsensical attempt at bending the argument in favor of keeping one article and deleting the other. Super Ψ Dro 09:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This is bludgeoning. I hope you understand I will not be replying to this user anymore. Super Ψ Dro is making false statements and is deflecting.

The article has no sources that mention the subject. The article has zero secondary sources. Here is the source assessment. This user failed to show one source in my source assessment that I got wrong. I think it speaks for itself.

A large portion of the body text is copied from my article, which describes the village and does not even briefly mention the subject. [29]. If my source assessment is wrong - demonstrate which one I got wrong.

According to the country's law, a "commune" is officially defines as a village council, named after the village residence (page 2): https://www.legis.md/cautare/downloadpdf/62947

I am sorry, but I am going to accept official definition made by the government of the country and not your personal opinion. Willywilly1111 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not bludgeoning, and I very strongly recommend that you reassess your behaviour in light of your partial blocks being expanded. I'm on the verge of disregarding the topic-ban discussion in favour of starting a siteban discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that this discussion has been running for almost 48 hours, and that no one has dissented, would someone like to close it?

After taking a 13-hour break, Willywilly1111 fired off four edits in quick succession:

First, he whined about me.

Then, he whined about Super Dromaeosaurus, accusing him of bludgeoning, when everyone else has accused Willywilly1111 of the same behavior.

Next, he whined about Dahn (and sniped at me — for the record, I invited no one to that AfD).

Last, more inchoate whining.

I respectfully submit that this show has gone on long enough. How much more of this misery are we supposed to endure? — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Biruitorul has been bludgeoning, and I have asked him to stop. I was very clear here and asked to stop.

When an unrelated editor voted to keep the article, Biruitorul replied to that claiming that the "village" does not exist.

Biruitorul and his friends, also claimed that a village is not a legal unit now, but could not provide a law to support their personal opinion.

First, he whined about me - I do not "whine" and I am allowed to talk about your conduct with whoever I want.

Then, he whined about Super Dromaeosaurus- I make a factual rebuttal, and do not whine. It Super Dromaeosaurus, your fried, you invited to the talk who cannot make a factual argument.

Last, more inchoate whining- asking for third party opinion is now whining, because Biruitor cannot find one secondary source for his article.

I think this form of conduct by this user is clearly concerning. It shows he is unable to accept when he is clearly wrong, even when the law of the country is against his personal assertions. Now he is insulting me by saying that I am “whining.” To note, I have never made any disrespectful comments about him.

For the record, he invited these editors to the talk. Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I clicked on the link you added with the bold face claim that he was claiming that the "village" does not exist only to find that the comment says absolutely nothing of the sort. Misquoting people like that is disruptive in a discussion like this one. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Noting that I have extended the p-block to include the AfD where they continued to bludgeon. Support a topic ban at a miniumum. This editor has shown they cannot edit collaboratively in this area. Star Mississippi 18:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi, would you describe the conduct of Biruitorul on the AfD as not bludgeoning? [34] I am bludgeoning, but he is not, for some reason? Or the rules do not apply to him, for some reason? We contributed 50% to that AfD, failing to provide one real argument, claiming that a village does not exist 10 times. Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Willywilly1111, you've made 22 comments to that AFD, most of which are long-winded treatises seemingly designed to be impenetrable. Dromaeosaurus has only made six, all of which are on the shorter side. Note that this is just me going off of counting signatures. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano you are actually wrong. Willywilly1111: 16 comments Biruitorul: 16 comments on this discussion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Răcăria, Rîșcani

  All my comments is a factual rebuttal, when Buruitorul writes something that is false. As false, as saying that a village is not a legal entity, ignoring what the coutry law says.

  While Buruitorul is not making any new points, is not able or make a rebuttal.

  If I went back to make text green, so it is easier to read, it is edit history, not a comment.

  So can @Star Mississippi, or someone else say why is that I am bludgeoning, but Buruitorul is not, for some reason? Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Super Dromaeosaurus' name doesn't even show up 16 times in that AfD - it only shows up ten times, four of which are other editors (yourself included) referring to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTTHEM and @Willywilly1111 you're doing yourself absolutely no favors. Please stop or you will also lose access to this discussion. Star Mississippi 19:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Edit statistics for the AFD say that Willywilly1111 has added more than double (2.5x) the amount of text as the next highest contributor. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @MrOllie Buruitorul made 16 comments, and I made 16 comments. You can go and count. I had to respond to his false statements to the point of bringing the copy of the country's law. Edit statistic shows me making text green. He made the same amount of comments as I did. I want to be fair, and I am asking, why the same rules do not apply to him?

  As I said, I am very willing to admit it when I am wrong. Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Explain why your signature shows up 22 times in that AfD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, you didn't have to do anything. You should accept responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming others for them.

  Your count is simply incorrect, he did not make the same amount of comments. Even if he had, that wouldn't excuse what you've been doing. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano What do you mean by by signature? I am counting my comment. Copy all the text and count how many comments I made. Let's be fair right- so lets count.

  I said it already, that i went back to make edits, made my comments green so it is easier to read. Is that not allowed?

  It is 16 distinct comments made my be. Same number of comments made Biruitorul and his friends. Comments with information that is factually wrong, like comments that contradict the law of the country.

  It is bludgeoning for me, but what is he doing is not bludgeoning? He is allowed to continue bludgeoning that same AfD? You are supposed to know the rules, so I am asking, please, help make sense of this. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure where you're getting that number or why you're fixating on minutiae, but on that afd you've written 22 comments and (as of writing) 40% of all text, greater than the next 3 editors combined. And as Star Mississippi noted, you're shooting yourself in the foot by pointing the finger at everybody else when it's your conduct that's in question here. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Let's count: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-one, Twenty-two. The reason why I count signatures is because each of them contains a permalink to the comment they're attached to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  For comparison:

  • Super Dromaeosaurus: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six.
  • Biruitorul: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen.

  In addition, the average length of both of those users' edits are far shorter than yours, with most of them being one or two lines of text compared to your four or five. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support in the hopes that disruption is isolated to this topic and wouldn't extend elsewhere and necessitate a block/ban. My prior interactions with Willywilly1111 were over some BLP disruption described in this now deleted section of their talk page, but I can easily chalk that up to a well intentioned newbie mistake. I have hope that edits outside the scope of the proposed TBAN would be constructive in light of that interaction, but it's obvious that they are not able to engage in this topic area constructively.

ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 18:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer I remember your comment. I just cleaned my page, and I also formated information other people added, and cited it, as I watched on the news. Willywilly1111 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and you're allowed to do so. I'm actually trying to defend you here to a degree, since the behaviour you're exhibiting on this issue doesn't seem to be reflected in your conduct elsewhere from what I've seen. I think you could be a constructive editor here, just not regarding this topic area. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• I have further expanded Willy's page block to here in lieu of the below and responses after the final warning. Enough is enough. Star Mississippi 19:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Star Mississippi, you seem to have underestimated their creativity. We now have an AfC help desk post where they are relitigating the matter. I have reverted and will support below now ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is an uninvolved admin able to apply an indef or is that against policy considering this thread? It's now obvious that Willywilly1111 is going to keep litigating this on any page that they're able to edit and refuses to listen to what anyone else is saying considering the fact that they've restored their help desk post 3 times now despite clear objection. I think a temporary indef while this discussion plays out to prevent further disruption seems warranted. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Temporary site block is what I meant to say/suggest, I phrased the above message poorly. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 20:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  which they're using to cast aspersions. I'm taking no further action. @Willywilly1111 please stop pinging me. Using the Help Desk to continue to litigate this argument does not show you can be a productive editor, in fact it is the complete opposite. You know how to request an unblock. Please do so if you wish but right now you're far closer to an indef without talk page access. Star Mississippi 21:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Indefinitely block/siteban Willywilly1111

In light of Star Mississippi expanding their partial blocks and their continued "I reject your reality and substitute my own" bludgeoning of both the AfD and this AN thread, I'm convinced that the topic-ban isn't going to help. I'm now proposing an indefinite block/siteban of Willywilly1111. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 18:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per my support of a tban above. The disruption on display is still in regards to the reason for the proposed TBAN, and I don't believe it will extend elsewhere once a TBAN is put in place. If this wasn't isolated to Răcăria and related discussions (such as here), then I'd support a broader sanction.ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The issue I see with that is that they've moved from arguing about Racaria to personalising the dispute with Biruitorul and Super Dromaeosaurus. I'm not convinced their haranguing of them is going to stop with the topic ban. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  With disappointment, striking my opposition in favor of weak support, as I'm now less confident that this will stop with a TBAN considering their adamance on continuing to bludgeon the discussion as shown by their reply to Biruitorul's (admittedly rather uncivil) response below.ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano First of all, I want to make it clear, I do not care about these two editors. They are the ones insulting me,making factually incorrect statements.

  What part am I not getting right? I considered the matter settled after the nomination was made. Instead, Biruitorul came back to this post and kept complaining here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#c-Biruitorul-20260423180100-J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano-20260421231200

  Or should we close the eyes for on this? I asked him to provide one secondary source for his claims, one source, and he failed and instead came here to complain that I am whining. His friends wrote that my source assessment is a lie. I asked, what source I got wrong, and Biruitorul wrote that I am whining.

  Is there one admin who wants to say that this is "Last, more inchoate whining"?

  This looks like bullying. Maybe @LaffyTaffer can read this. I do honestly do not know why something like this is allowed. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  If there are issues with Biruitorul's conduct, your behaviour has wildly overshadowed it and has made any other possible discussion on the matter nearly impossible. If you had simply concisely made your points once or twice and let other editors examine things from there, constructive conversations might have happened from all of this, including the article talk pages, the AfDs, etc, and this AN discussion might not have WP:BOOMERANGed. Digging through the battleground and walls of text (from you, not others) was exhausting enough that I still have been unable to get the details of the content dispute to determine a !vote, and even parsing the conduct dispute has proven difficult for the same reasons. This is why your bludgeoning has been so disruptive even before it became personal issues with other editors. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  From what I could grok while pulling up the lists of AfD edits above, Biruitorul was far calmer and more consise at making arguments in favour of deleting/redirecting the article and didn't attempt to attack Willy on the AfD, sticking strictly to commenting on the article's content. I don't think Biruitorul's manner is at issue here, considering he made as many posts as he did because he was asking honest questions of Willy and getting squirreled in response. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^MUSHROOM 19:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Support — totally unsuitable temperament for the project. Rarely have I encountered someone here so impervious to calm reasoning, so willfully blind to constructive arguments, so fanatically entrenched in the pettiest disputes, so haughtily hostile, so monomaniacally clinging to his own baroque fantasies, so fixated on the most trivial minutiae, so breezily ready to twist and distort, so utterly unpleasant. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This editor accused of whining- that is a pleasant tone.

I support to block Biruitorul too. He ignored Wikipedia rules 6 times, makes statement that are factually wrong, and has been bullying me, and insulting me. I never said that he was "whining" here. His friends tried to gaslight me, a new editor, claiming that census is not a primary source.

He is so fixated on the most trivial minutiae and cannot accept that he is wrong, and his conduct is wrong, and cannot make a one real argument that is not [i think so].

I would say this form of contact is even embarrassing for an account that is 10 years old. When someone who claims to edit wikipedia for 10 years is not being able to say what a primary sources is - that is actually embarrassing. I asked him for one secondary source to support his claims and he could not provide even one.

I am being fair, and I have been respectful to everyone here. Willywilly1111 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from practically everywhere we now have an AfC help desk post relitigating the matter. I'm probably too involved at this point; if I wasn't, I would just have pressed the block button now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Ping me if you want an elaboration from my part. But I think there's nothing to say that hasn't been said three times over already. Super Ψ Dro 20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Involved support given the continued disruption and need to continue expanding page blocks given their unwillingness to hear feedback. Star Mississippi 20:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support Regretfully, this is now my preference also. Yesterday was exhausting as I was pinged across pages to the point that I had to stop editing Wikipedia and do something else for a while - I only returned once things had calmed down. The fact that they're continuing to WP:FORUMSHOP tipped me over the edge. I was willing to withdraw my earlier support for a TBAN but something didn't feel right and I wanted to wait and see what happened. It turns out my instincts were correct. I'm happy to help editors who end up in a bad situation because of one or two misunderstandings, but I haven't been able to help many other people yesterday because if the amount of time I spent on this case. I'm sure that I'll receive a reply to this post challenging my decision, I may or may not reply as this is taking up a disproportionate amount of my time and I honestly need a break from this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support While I still think that this editor had the potential to be a useful resource to improve the encyclopedia, they seem to have zero desire to participate in a collaborative project, have either have no willingness or no ability to try and understand how Wikipedia works, and is completely hostile at the slightest disagreement. An absurd number of people have tried to get this editor to slow down and try to get things back on track, but this editor has angrily pushed away anyone trying to reach out. This project as not for them, at least at this time. We've wasted enough of that. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  While I'm not changing my Support I'm totally fine with this as a normal admin action. It does just as well in stopping the significant disruption, but if they someday change their approach and want to try this again properly, I don't think their conduct was so egregious that the community must review it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support This has become very tiresome. Willy seems to be deaf and unyielding. Time to be shown the door.

Donald Albury 23:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support: was getting tired of this person forum shopping after being given (what I would consider) reasonable advice from other editors and myself on talk, teahouse, and everywhere else before this, and was likely going to support a topic ban before reading this. After reading this, permablock is needed to stop the mass pinging and bludgeoning of everyone involved. Realtent (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. Willywilly1111 is now indefinitely blocked. I put down 'not here to help build an encyclopedia' as the shortest reason but really you could pick your poison. This is a normal admin action; if the community wants to formalize a ban then by all means, but either way, block has fallen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment @Izno has found that Willywilly1111 is a sock of User:WestwoodHights573. I don't think there's much else to do here with that in mind. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This should still be (quickly) closed with a ban ... and then thrown far away. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)