Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1223

~2026-23006-78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brendan Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the edit history for the Brendan Kavanagh article shows, TA ~2026-23006-78 has been repeatedly adding what is clearly original research, despite being reverted multiple times, despite being told to take it to the talk page and seek consensus. Possibly all that is needed here is an instruction to read WP:OR, and to stop wasting people's time with a personal interpretation based on sources that say absolutely nothing about Kavanagh, but failing that, some sort of block would seem appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If this continues, a simple good ol' block is fine. Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It has continued long enough. They were already issued a final warning on their talk page, and I have alredy reported them to WP:AIV Marcus Markup (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than risk dupulication of work, and because there is a backlog at WP:AIV, I have removed the report at WP:AIV knowing the issue will be addressed properly here. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The archive bot archived this, and I have restored it per WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE. If I should take this back to WP:AIV, let me know. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They have a lot of previous accounts, but the relevent (and most recent) is Special:Contributions/~2026-22792-95. The others haven't edited the article recently so I see no need to disclose them. Blue-Sonnet 23:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

They've moved onto Special:Contributions/~2026-27175-00 but haven't edited the same article yet. There is a Cluebot revert of an OR edit, however. Blue-Sonnet 21:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Burblecrash001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been frequently adding unsourced additions to the Army_War_College,_Mhow article. I have in fact encouraged this user to politely cite their sources several times 1 2, yet to seemingly no avail. Their recent edit summary on the article claimed that they have added sources and citation needed tags, but this is not the case.

I also have concerns that this user is using LLMs not only to draft articles, but their arguments for keeping said unsourced content as well, evidenced by their belief that WP:PRESERVE is a hardline policy instead of a guideline or encouragement. This is also evidenced by them taking me to WP:DRN here despite me reverting them only once, and me explicitly telling them in my first comment on their talk page (linked above earlier) that there was no disagreement and that I only wanted them to cite their source. Assuming good faith I must state that I could be absolutely wrong in this assumption, but I must also be honest that I believe this user is appearing to use LLMs.

I must stress that I do not want anything harsh whatsoever to happen to this user as they are clearly new, but I do want administrators to review this user's edits and urge them to cite their sources. As I was only notified of this article via patrolling edits and have no connection to this page outside of this, I really want to stay as "uninvolved" as possible. Thank you. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 21:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Confirming LLM use, even ignoring the structure and circular citation in Special:Diff/1351996043, they accidentally copied and pasted over the Edit summary: the model output into the article. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They haven't edited in a few days, so I'm inclined to give them some leeway (especially as they are new), although I would be happy to get some reassurance from their end in terms of LLM use. I will note positive attempts at communication and seeking dispute resolution. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption after final warning. First four warnings:

Disruptive edit after final warning (includes addition of spam EL): GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

GA, you are going to need to provide a lot more than you have if you want to make a case for disruption. You provided four diffs for stock stock template warning, most of them delivered by the same person--which tells us only that there was a dispute involved enough for someone to have to have wanted to use these templates--and then one diff which you describe as "disruptive" but which looks like a pretty commonplace, good-faith copy edit.

Mind you, I don't think that edit, simplifying several sentences in an article for a complex physiological and behavioural topic, is an improvement, and I can see how it might potentially be part of an issue, if there is a similar pattern of edits. But neither is it particularly transparent what your complaints are, which articles they cover, or what steps you've taken to resolve them short of bringing this user here to a forum meant for situations which have proven resistant to normal dispute resolution processes or other serious longterm, intractable behavioural problems. Please augment your original complaint with a supplemental posting of additional diffs and context.

Also, please be aware that there is no such thing as a "final warning" here--at least, not one that can be handed out by a single non-admin. We have templates which increase in the severity of the tone they employ, but this is meant merely so the users employing them can modulate their messaging. Nothing concrete is automatically triggered by users making their way through that hierarchy. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I've dug into the reported user's short edit history, and do see where there may be some issues. The user has been making a glut of edits since they registered at the very end of last month. Individually, these edits tend to be minor and the significant majority of them remove content from articles about celebrities (mostly American actors and comedians, but with some Egyptian celebrities mixed in).

The issue is that the content removed is almost always WP:DUE (or at least as debatably due as random minutia in this manner of BLP is) and for which no good reason for the deletion is provided in the edit summary. When the editor does add content, it is often dubious or plainly incorrect: as for example, changing La Toya Jackson's profession from "singer" to "actor", removing professions of other celebrities from their infoboxes, adding the weblink www.blinking.com (a random landing page with no relationship to the subject of the article) to blinking, and adding a descriptor that one Egyptian actress is a drag queen, which is inaccurate--the last may be straight up vandalism, of course.

It is very possible this is a case of extended-confirmed gaming--that is speculation, of course, but it would fit the pattern of explaining all of these random edits which would be classified as minor gnoming, if not for the fact that that very few of them improve the article, and a strong portion are clearly disimprovements. Willondon has used rollback to revert them on at least a few articles, and may have more insight. But there are clear signs of potential WP:NOTHERE or block evasions motivations behind all of this. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

(I composed this before I was aware of the above post.)

I think the issue here is competence, and the effort needed for the community to correct a large number of edits. The talk page has more than six editors expressing concerns over a couple months. And it seems most of their edits have been reverted by a number of editors. I’ve made many of the reverts and warnings myself. And there’s little evidence that they’re improving behaviour based on feedback.

I was restrained, because the edits ranged between distinct disimprovements to improvements of marginal or dubious value (e.g. changing ‘occupations from “actor / singer” to “singer / actor” ).

please be aware that there is no such thing as a "final warning” There is such a thing as a final warning. It has a big red stop-sign icon, and a template. It doesn’t mean an editor is blocked. Only an admin can do that. It means that the community has expressed their opinion, as a prelude to an admin deciding how they should best represent Wikipedia on behalf of the community. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the same person as this previous AN/I complaint. I've blocked a few accounts and will put together an SPI that can be used moving forward to track new accounts. I'll link it here when done.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Good eye and good looking out, Ponyo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

SPI pointer: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molieredon.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not worth wasting too much time on, but what you reference there are level 4im templates. Though the OP is not the first to refer to them colloquially as "final warnings", we should be careful to discourage describing them as such, since they have no authoritative function as such and are often deployed in high-tension content and personal disputes. Hinting that they represent some sort of official threshold or metric that the user they are sent to has triggered is problematic, in my view. Because these templates very much do not mean "that the community has expressed their opinion" on the conduct in question. It means one user has--and often in circumstances where that individual is highly involved in the underlying dispute, and/or where a block is very much not forthcoming or likely at all. The only people legitimately in a position to give official "you are definitely about to get blocked, and this is the last warning you will get" are admins, and they, pretty much without exception, eschew these templates in favour of more bespoke and unambiguous notices. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So only admins should issue final warnings. That was not my understanding. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, anyone can use a 4im template. And indeed, as I said before, they tend to be used more by rank and file editors than admins. And they can serve as proper warnings and tools to get some editors to slow their roll on disruptive behaviour. But that doesn't make them actual "final warnings" in the sense that they realistically trigger an increased likelihood of a block or reliably predict when one is coming. Because anyone can use them, meaning sometimes they really are used by an uninvolved party who honestly does see writing on the wall as far as an incoming block is concerned (as you did here), but in many more cases, they are just lobbed back and forth between parties to a dispute. And encouraging parties to a dispute to view these as "final warnings" (when they are not labeled that way for a reason) can encourage more aggressive posturing by the party behind the template--in some but obviously not all circumstances.

But there's a second reason that is more relevant to this instance that also underscores the problem with that label: ANI sees a pretty significant number of reports where the OP does not adequately diff or explain the problematic behaviour being reported, and sometimes these reports rely on these "final warnings" as sufficient indication of a problem, when we really do expect a lot more context ina report if someone feels the issues are big enough to bring here.

I mean, don't get me wrong, all's-well-that-ends-well, and I'm glad the OP brought this particular report; it ended up being worth the examining and was quickly addressed. But not every ANI thread benefits from a user taking the time to look through the reported editor's entire history (as I did here) or another like you, who is already familiar with the issues and happened to notice and respond to the ANI notice with additional context, or especially an admin like Ponyo who was able to connect the dots, recognize an LTA, and take immediate action. Usually a report that boils down to "look at all of these template warnings", without additional diffs and information, is not going to gain enough attention to address the disruption. Calling a level 4im template a "final warning" can feed into that sort of confusion about what the community is actually looking for in terms of proven disruption, when a report is filed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I was using "final warning" here as shorthand for "You may be blocked from editing without further warning", and in fact "without further warning" sounds pretty final to me. I have seen other users do this in the past. But I will try to be more precise in the future. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you're for sure not the only one: I'm positive I've seen it at least a dozen times over the years. But this is all semi-pedantic side discussion; your report was valid and is appreciated. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The same "final warning" terminology is used to refer to level 4 warnings by Twinkle. If you really believe that this terminology is incorrect, you should request Twinkle's messaging to be changed. I generally refer to these warnings as "final warnings" , and I'm pretty sure I picked it up from seeing Twinkle messages. CodeTalker (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That's very valuable context to me, not having ever adopted Twinkle myself: thank you CodeTalker. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing because I'm really stuck with a user (@Al-Hilali_Z) on the Daghaghra page. After requesting an RFC and the users who responded (@Rosguill, @AndreJustAndre, @Polygnotus) agreeing to add my sources about the tribe, the individual still seems to disagree and instantly removes the sources that report this, even though they come from reliable sources. How should I handle this? Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mhmdgrd, the notice at the top of the page and when posting state that you must notify the other editor when reporting (I've done this for you).

The problem is that you made the edit before the RFC was closed - it's still currently open.

Andre told you to request closure first here.

Al-Hilali_Z reverted your edit because they correctly pointed out that the RFC hasn't been closed yet. Blue-Sonnet 14:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, there is a problem in the sources and the RFC, the resume of the debate is about the roots of the Daghaghra tribe, but actually a source used by the user Mhmdgrd litteraly dont talk about the tribe, he claim that Ibn Khaldun told something about them, but litteraly not. I told that all the time, and nobody cares about my messages. I have also relaunch the debate but nobody asked. We can base our debate on something that Ibn Khaldun never told (that Daghaghra tribe are berbers). Also the user @Mhmdgrd is problematic, i already explained what he did and what he is trying. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

My impression was that the RfC didn't really pose questions that would allow for uninvolved editors to help resolve the dispute. Sources clearly disagreed and presented various characterizations of Daghaghra's history, composition, and practices, that were not adequately captured in the listed options at the top of the RfC. This was reflected in the previously uninvolved editors' AndreJustAndre and Polygnotus's participation, and my own objection from the start. I don't know that there's much to adjudicate for the RfC close--it's clearly no consensus, with the numerical frontrunner being a poorly-defined "Other" option. Editors need to let go of insisting that this tribe must uniformly be described as Arab or Berber and instead follow sources more directly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I submitted the closure request here. What do I need to do to finalize it please? Mhmdgrd (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but the majority of sources described them as Arabs, all the sources i use to tell that are on the page, actually Mhmdgrd have just one source who tell that, and he tried to make it pass for one of Ibn Khaldun, but it's litteraly just a source of André Louis, who used the types of berber tribes of Ibn Khaldun and classed Daghaghra in, it's the only historian who did that, all the others classed Daghaghra as Arab bedouins. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

User has had several warnings of bad edits and ignores them. — Marblyn ♍ (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

And do you have any diffs to offer us? Ravenswing 08:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the page, you are required to notify involved editors. I have done so for you this time. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I decided to take a look to see what's going on. I think the warnings/issues are as follows:

• Adding Category:Christmas food to articles like Chicken as food and Beef.
• Four warnings for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material in the past two weeks.
• 106 of 602 edits reverted (just over ⅙ of their total over the past three months).
• Claiming that 60% of accounts are TA's on Wikipedia:Temporary accounts, however they didn't explain where this figure came from when challenged.

Blue-Sonnet 13:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What the heck, why I do those things? AeroVolk, Parody of DeroVolk (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering that as well. You are the only one who can know, so please tell us. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a language barrier here. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 22:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• JoyBrag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oliver Sean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• W.O.A Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JoyBrag has edited precisely two articles in eight years. They have denied having any conflict of interest, and I'm kind of at a loss as to where to go next as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 158#Oliver Sean in 2020 didn't change much. According to the page statistics for Oliver Sean they are responsible for over 50% of the article. Today they made this edit to W.O.A. Records changing the lead to W.O.A. Entertainment Group is a global media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in the United Kingdom. Founded in 1998 by Dr. Oliver Sean—a Billboard Top 10 artist and Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA)—the group has established a significant presence across the UK, European, and North American markets. While renowned for pioneering the independent music movement in India and Dubai, W.O.A. has evolved into a diversified empire encompassing music, film, and international festivals. Under Dr. Sean’s leadership, the organization integrates its commercial success with a dedicated corporate mission focused on animal welfare advocacy and the promotion of independent artistry on a global scale which seems somewhat excessive for a record company I doubt most people will ever have even heard of. FDW777 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Some really concerning sourcing in the Oliver Sean article. Personal information sourced to Google Plus photos - Google Plus having been shuttered, and not retrievable from archive.org. Morwen (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Discovered also a Oliversean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the history of Oliver Sean, who curiously stopped editing a day before JoyBrag started. Morwen (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like potential WP:SPI material. AZenit3 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, Checkusers aren't able to work with accounts that have not been active recently, and the Oliversean account hasn't edited in almost eight years. Truthnope (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The wording of that edit to WOA Records is really blatant; I'd be shocked if there wasn't COI going on. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've now also discovered that W.O.A Records is more or less copy and pasted directly from - I'm not sure it meets G12 because the history is complex and it may contain non-copyvio material in some iteration. Morwen (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The website tunedloud.com is cited three times in that article, and every one of those sources looks like an AI-generated press release. You can see a lot of the trademarks of AI writing in those articles: overuse of adjectives and adverbs, "it's not x, it's y" phrases, and countless lists of three. All of the articles are attributed to Staff, and they were all added by JoyBrag. Also, the website has a Fiverr ad under Music Promotion that lists tunedloud as one of the websites used for promotion.

First article and its addition.

Second article and its addition.

Third article and its addition. Truthnope (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand that my lack of connection to this article has been questioned, even referencing comments from 2018. However, my position remains unchanged: I have no direct connection to Oliver Sean. My goal has always been to ensure this article is as complete and accurate as possible based on what is publicly available. To address the recent concerns regarding the education section: Sourced Data: I have provided citations for all information currently in the article. This includes the academic credentials, which are documented in available online records and independent publications. Verifiability over Opinion: Wikipedia's core policy is Verifiability (WP:V)—that information should be included if it is supported by a reliable source. I have linked the sources that exist online to support these facts. Neutrality: If there is a dispute over how a specific credential is described, I am open to using purely neutral, factual language that reflects the sources provided. The fact that I have consistently looked for and provided these sources for several years should be seen as a commitment to the article's accuracy. I ask that we focus on the provided sources rather than making repeated assumptions about my identity or motivations. JoyBrag (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use an LLM/chatbot to communicate with us. These editors respected you enough to communicate their thoughts to you in their own words rather than asking an algorithm to spit out plausible-looking text for them, so it's not unreasonable to expect you to show them the same courtesy. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

i don't get it. I am trying to answer respectfully. In what way is this a chatbot? I referenced what is the right way to respond and responded as I thought I was meant to. I may not be an expericed wipedia editor but this is a topic that I have been interested in and have been updating. If you want us to have a regular normal chat hen that's fine. Let's talk as a regular chat. I did t realise we can just have emotional conversations here. JoyBrag (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The reply you made above and the replies here and below are quite obviously not written by the same entity. I'm happy to see that you've stopped using LLM communication in this discussion now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And either you or or your LLM/Chatbot is simply wrong about WP:V. It does not say "that information should be included if it is supported by a reliable source". That is a necessary condition for inclusion, but not a sufficient one. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats fine. I only know what I source on the website for information. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected. However I am being accused of having COI simply because I edit this page regularly and that is not right. JoyBrag (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going speculate about a COI here because I don't think it's productive. As to the substance of the articles - there were, unfortunately, lots and lots of sources on Oliver Sean that did not meet the test of being a reliable source (WP:RS) - google plus links, press releases, user-generated content sites, etc. Where valid sources are given in some cases they do not back the claim made (a 'top 50' album turns out to have actually been at 52). And I still haven't finished going through them all. Oh, and nearly the entire text of W.O.A Records appears to be a copy & paste from the official site, and is thus a copyright violation. Morwen (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes it was a recorded as a top 52 album as shown on the Official Chart Company as listed here https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/58337/oliver-sean-and-r-i-p/

However I quoted the story that I saw on a post either on social media or a magazine article that mentions it as Top 50's. That is my bad. I remember adding the link to the #52 that it was on.

I also want to clearly mention that the Google plus or Google photos links that were added for reference were by someone else. I did not cite Google plus. I saw it there and also saw that some didn't work as those sites don't even exist anymore I but didn't touch it as I had no idea how to edit that or even had the time to.g through all those Google plus citations.

In regards to the WOA Records page that I edit sometimes - it is again what I see on their website. I am not too well versed with the company and was only trying to help keep the page updated as it is linked to the artist that I follow closely.

I also saw that you removed the recording academy and Grammy u mentorahip. Again this is mentioned all over his website, articles, social media officially linked photos to the Grammy sites etc. I didn't realise it cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia. I have seen multiple artists use this same phrase on their Wikipedia, and I simply assumed that it is proper.

Once again - my apologies if I have used wrong citations or edits that are not allowed. However, I am only doing something that I actually love doing when I get the chance to support an artist that I follow and whose music I follow. If that is a conflict of interest than that is a shame. Sincerely - Joy JoyBrag (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Joy, caring about something is absolutely not a conflict of interest, but it does make it much harder to write a truly neutral article. You might want to start off with topics you feel less strongly about to learn the ropes, but before that please read up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability so you can understand what went wrong and what should have been done instead.

A lot of newer editors also find this really helpful, along with these tutorials.

The most useful piece of advice I can give when learning is to always look at the See also sections on policy/guideline pages, that's where you'll find more info & guides. You should also try out the Teahouse if you're ever unsure of anything & need advice. Blue-Sonnet 11:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have seen multiple artists use this same phrase on their Wikipedia, and I simply assumed that it is proper.

It's not their Wikipedia and they are not the ones using the phrase.

Pages on Wikipedia are not written by their subjects, and are not owned by their subjects. They are written by uninvolved volunteers based on material published by third parties. This is critical, and if you don't grasp it, will cause you a lot of trouble and headache. Material that a person publishes about him/herself is mostly not usable as sources for a Wikipedia page about them. M kuhner (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Rizky88 (talk · contribs · logs)

Editor has a long history of unsourced biography warnings on their talk page, several of them final, with another editor asking there in February: Has he not had enough warnings over his eight years here? But the user only seems to edit on mobile and never posts to any talk pages, so this may be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU that merits an attention-getting block, if they're unaware of eight years of talk page notices.

To give examples of recent issues on a biography at Grace Chatto: they used a band's group Instagram post praising a member of the England squad as a source for the statement that Chatto personally supports that player's local club. They later expanded on that with some BLPPRIMARY synth research into Chatto appearing to live close to the stadium. I removed this and gave them another final warning (their last was in 2021 May 2025) and pointed out the problem with the sources. They added the claim back today using only the Instagram source. A few days earlier they'd also added unsourced parental names to the same biography. Belbury (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, a block should've taken place once there were two or three different incidents without resolution. After that, everyone who sees the continued behavior but doesn't report it then shares responsibility for every subsequent bad edit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

User blocked I have indefinitely blocked the editor from articlespace with an instruction to respond here. The continued BLP violations absolutely have to stop, and should have been stopped before this point. Mfield (Oi!) 18:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Multiple editors have expressed concerns about LateNightCoffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their activities regarding categories and templates related to those categories. They appear to not be willing to discuss their behavior, choosing instead to set their talk page archiving to 18 hours. I suggest a topic ban from all edits that involve categories and templates, with an offer to remove the topic ban if they show that they are willing to discuss their behavior and seek consensus for edits that they know will be controversial.

I could post a sea of diffs, but simply looking at the user log (linked above) and the 30 archive pages they have generated since the account was created on 27 December 2025 shows the pattern of behavior better than a long list of diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• I did a summary at one point, archived here - User_talk:LateNightCoffee/Archive_27 - jc37 14:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Would WP:IDHT apply here? LithyLithium (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Here is a good example of IDHT: User talk:LateNightCoffee/Archive 19#PLEASE STOP! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  That is not a representative example of my interactions with others, most of the discussion is between me and S Mason Garrison. I have difficulty communicating with S Mason Garrison. I do not have this problem with other users. Most other users manage to clearly communicate their feedback in far fewer messages. Late Night Coffee 06:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  If I remember correctly, Macon and Mason are the only people who have objected to the speed of my talk page archiving? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I read everything that arrives on my talk page, I respond to most non-automated messages, usually on the author's talk page or on the talk page of the article their message was about.

  If I haven't replied, I have usually checked if the problem is already solved, and either seen the issue is already resolved or quickly followed their suggestion.

  If I disagree with them about the problem, I avoid editing the page or section they were talking about until I have time to properly discuss the problem that their message described.

  Viewing only my archive misrepresents my responsiveness to communication, because it usually contains only the first message of each conversation. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• pinging User:HouseBlaster. - jc37 14:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I've tried to act as a mentor to LNC, though I can't be everywhere all the time (and watching over their every edit is unrealistic). I can't oppose a topic ban or partial block, even though it would make me sad. If anyone has any questions for me, please ping on reply. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for trying, @HouseBlaster, I truly appreciate your hard work. The high volume was exhausting, even for me to keep up with for a while. ^SMason_Garrison 20:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  To the closer, I also support a topic ban broadly constrewed to categories and templates. I don't know if it's WP:IDHT or WP:CIR, but @HouseBlaster and I tried for a really long time User_talk:LateNightCoffee/Conversation_with_Smasongarrison_and_HouseBlaster. ^SMason_Garrison 02:57, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  The template ban is not needed, the complaints about this related to two navigation templates for the right-wing terrorism page. They were deleted by consensus and I accept the decision. Late Night Coffee 15:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also think a broad topic ban on categories is excessive. I think it would be unhelpful to the project to prohibit me participating in discussions. Particularly given the very large number of changes S Mason Garrison has made very rapidly to categories about topics that she has said she does not know much about. Late Night Coffee 15:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  For context, @Liz and I are trying to clean up some of massive redudancy of their recent category creations: User talk:Smasongarrison#Thanks! ^SMason_Garrison 19:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's possibly somewhat inappropriate to delete all of the categories we disagree about after someone else opened a this discussion. It seemed to warrant at least being mentioned here. ^{(ping me)} Late Night Coffee 23:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster, thank you for your help. You explained things very well. I stopped asking about every individual category because I worried I was taking too much of your time? Late Night Coffee 07:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm willing to seek input from other editors for potentially controversial new categories, if there's an appropriate place to do this. I don't think it's fair on HouseBlaster for it to be entirely his job.

  • Guy Macon said I should obtain consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Categories, but that doesn't seem to be the correct use of that space. That is for uncontroversial requests from unregistered users? It's not intended for consensus discussion about controversial categories?
  • Categories for discussion seems like it should be the right place? But I think I suggested this previously and somebody said no?
  • One option I thought of is using {{rfc}} on the talk page of a parent category?
  • Alternatively, the most appropriate place could be an article page related to the topic. The advantage of article talk pages is that more people watch article talk pages, and they are more knowledgeable about the topic. e.g.

    Request for comment: Category:New Thing – I would like to add this page to a new category called Category:New Thing, which would also include this article and another article. Would this category be a useful addition to Wikipedia?

  I'm very willing to consult other editors, but I don't know where this should happen? Late Night Coffee 07:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• The most immediate issue is the velocity (and apparent acceleration) of LNC’s edits. I would say that it’s very difficult for anyone to edit this fast and maintain responsible editing. The volume in and of itself might be a sign of irresponsibility. On March 10, I noted 7k as a high volume of edits for the first two months of a newer account. A month and change later, another 8.5k have been tacked on.

Just today, I reverted some apparent mis-categorization of extremely high-profile shootings Abundant Life Columbine and others. In my view, HouseBlaster’s mentorship has not been effective at preventing disruption. Mikewem (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Before I added the category to the Columbine page, I added two sources that use the exact words "suicide attack" to refer to the attack. The other two said the attacker committed suicide, and I didn't add that word to the page, but they don't use the exact phrase "suicide attack". Late Night Coffee 05:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said below, I would probably only include Columbine if I was editing them today, but the other two still are not excluded by the section you linked. Late Night Coffee 19:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi LateNightCoffee, in my first few months of editing, I was taken to notice boards a few times too. I found it very frustrating, and I would imagine that you also find this very frustrating.

What I would say is that the time to do this kind of discussion about potentially controversial content is before you make the edit, or maybe right after the edit gets reverted. Admin noticeboards are for discussing conduct, not content.

The section I linked says The definition also generally excludes mass shootings in which the perpetrators commit suicide, as the shooter committing suicide is a separate act from shooting their victims.

I guess I could have opened a discussion and supplied this as a verbatim quote when I reverted these edits. Mikewem (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, We can continue this on Talk:Columbine High School massacre if you prefer? I'm only interested in re-adding it to the body text and infobox, someone else can decide if it belongs in the category. And yes I normally would use the article talk page after it got reverted, but we hadn't got to that step yet. The first time I saw your revert was here, and I told admins connected to this that I would avoid other editing until I responded to this thread. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 02:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

LateNightCoffee please don’t resume pushing controversial edits. This thread has not been closed yet. Mikewem (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, I was confused by your suggestion that it should be there. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how it's controversial? Is it just the topic? Or because you reverted it? Or the edit itself? The others were inadequately referenced, and I probably shouldn't have added the category, but the quote calling Columbine a "suicide attack" was the New York Times. Using the same terminology as one of the biggest newspapers from the same country seems very uncontroversial? But if you mean the revert debate or the general suicide / violence topic, then that makes sense. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The topic of Columbine is especially sensitive because it was the first US school shooting of its type in a long line of school shootings. Any attempt to describe it as a suicide attack is controversial, because the attack does not meet the common definition of a suicide attack. A suicide attack is commonly understood to be one where the attacker’s death is weaponized as a material part of the attack, where some physical aspect of their method of suicide causes more physical harm to others in the vicinity of the suicide.

This message should absolutely not be taken as an invitation to add a paragraph or section about how Columbine was sometimes “described as a suicide attack” at the time by contemporary commentators. Such an effort would likely get reverted per WP:RECENTISM. Mikewem (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, copycats and prevented copycats, have also been described as suicide attacks. Suicidal intent is a feature of the type of attack that started with Columbine. The definition you are using is also not universal. The sources that are advocating that definition are all talking about terrorism in West Asia, but there possibly are relevant sources we could add in a more balanced section.

I think this is really just a content dispute. I made an edit, with several sources, you removed it, the next step is we discuss it on the talk page with other editors, like we've done for all of our previous disagreements. This is what I would have done next if you hadn't raised it here before it got to that stage. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem Some of this also relates to my other edits you've mentioned in this thread, so it's somewhat relevant here? The aspect that relates to my other edits, is that if we were writing an essay together – that didn't need to follow Wikipedia guidelines – I would suggest adding the sources using the narrow definition for a more balanced version of the text I added. But I checked the sources using the narrow definition of suicide attack, and they don't mention "Columbine" or either attacker's name? If I used sources for 2025 Bondi Beach shooting that didn't mention that shooting, you removed them as WP:COATRACK? So the sources that don't mention the Columbine shooting are not relevant to that page? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem They're also resuming categorization and something akin to sealioning: Talk:2015 Bagram Airfield bombing#Category changes, Talk:Islamic State – Caucasus Province#02:17 (UTC) 26 April 2026 .^SMason_Garrison 17:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Smasongarrison they’ve also resumed adding coatracky sections to Bondi that demand editor time to fix or trim. Mikewem (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. So what's the next step with this ANI? I'm not seeing any evidence of them understanding the volunteer time costs or engaging with the heart of the conduct issues being raised. ^SMason_Garrison 21:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

LNC has engaged in pointy editing at every opportunity available. Every policy warning turns into an attempt to weaponize that policy against the warner. Every content pov disagreement turns into LNC going on to push that same pov in multiple new places. Every answered question turns into LNC re-asking the same question multiple times. It’s like whack a mole, except every time you whack one, three more (or sometimes, five dozen more) moles pop up. By immediately launching solely into the exact same editing behavior that got them here, LNC has proven that, for whatever reason, they are not competent to abide by editing restrictions. They’ve already begun discussing appealing the temp partial block that was put in place as a stop gap just until this thread gets closed. As far as I can tell, we never got an apology for the massive disruption they’ve caused, and all they’ve done since is whine about the size of the broom we’ve used to clean up their mess. Since there is no scenario where LNC will be allowed to edit without some restrictions in place, and since they’ve proven they do not have the competency to abide by restrictions, the only answer is an indef.

For what it’s worth, it’s starting to look like LNC might force voorts hand to upgrade to an indef on their own accord. My prognostication is that the “what now?” question will be rendered moot. Mikewem (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, I did a very small amount of editing, and I even presented some of it here for feedback to ask if I'd understood people's feedback so far. For the first few days I didn't do any other editing at all. I stopped other things completely while I was reading and responding to the first set of comments here.

Nobody said that the restrictions currently in place were until the thread closes. If they did, it got lost amongst the other messages.

I haven't yet asked for any restrictions to be reduced as such, I clarified what restrictions were currently in place, and I've asked what I need to do to get them reduced. The original interpretation from a few other people was inaccurate, that's why I changed from zero other editing to a small amount.

If the recommendation to avoid controversial topics etc. is only until this closes I'll go back to focusing on resolving this. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 07:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison, I made a very small number of cautious edits. I won't add or remove any other categories while this ANI is open. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee Again, my advice remains that you stop fixating on my edits and focus on the conduct being raised. This new comment in a redirect nomination (User talk:LateNightCoffee#"Lone wolf (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion) really indicates to me that you don't understand the conduct problems. Broken links from templates are not what WP:CIR is about. ^SMason_Garrison 12:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither iş combing and logging my edits: .^SMason_Garrison 15:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The list is just copy pasted from an edit summary search, it took just a few minutes. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You missed my point. I just meant I'm not incompetent for finding your messages unhelpful when your messages were often unclear or contained errors. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

the velocity (and apparent acceleration) of LNC’s edits – Based on the remainder of this discussion, I'd say the real problem is the jerk of their edits. EEng 19:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I see what you did there... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I prefer original humor. That was entirely too derivative. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster, @EEng, @Jc37, Ignoring the possible pun, I think the problem is more about fluctuations than continuous acceleration. I think this is the biggest problem. There have been a small number of times when I have made a large number of edits that started too many new things without finishing them properly, e.g. the time I created a large number of new categories but ran out of time in the day before adding any pages to them. This is what Liz was telling me to "please stop" in the thread above. I haven't left that many categories completely empty overnight since that discussion, but I've left other things inadequately complete when I've been editing a bit to quickly. "Slow down" is good advice and I've tried to follow it. The difficulty I have is that "too fast" is very subjective. I would be very willing to avoid doing these patches of edits that are too fast and somewhat error prone, but I need a less subjective goal than "slow down". Partly to avoid future disputes about if I broke this agreement, but also to help me know when I need to slow down. The strongest objection people have is when I make too many new categories too quickly? A way too quantify "slow down" would be a minimum 3 hour gap between new categories'? That's enough time to finish it properly, and enough of a gap to work as a safety break on the "jerk" habit. It also means no more than 2 or 3 appear overnight for people in different timezones, that seems feasible for people to keep up with if they want to check my work? I think this would work well to stop this bad habit and improve my editing. Late Night Coffee 08:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a safety break on the "Jerk" habit, I'm not planning to create 56 categories every week. Most of my category creation has been within a few short times of very fast edits. I think a sustainable rate would work better for everyone? The current situation is I make a very large number of new categories, then I get negative feedback or warnings, then people explain which categories were unsuitable, then I understand a bit better, then get over confident again and go too fast again. I think a 3 hour minimum gap would fix this well. Late Night Coffee 09:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought of a one per day rule, but if I am doing something like dividing a decade into years, dragging this out over ten days seems somewhat disruptive? Late Night Coffee 09:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how a 3 hour gap solves the problem. You're asking a lot of volunteer time to clean up after you as you learn. It's not reasonable to expect that people are going to follow you around, check your edits, and give you the same feedback repeatedly. Frankly, I don't see a path for you editing in category space without some serious understanding of overcat. Just because you can diffuse by year doesn't mean that you should. ^SMason_Garrison 20:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

"I don't see how a 3 hour gap solves the problem". I explained this above. Late Night Coffee 14:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"You're asking a lot of volunteer time to clean up after you as you learn", a smaller number of more carefully created categories would not need to be "cleaned up". Late Night Coffee 14:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You giving me the same unclear feedback repeatedly was not helpful. You are not very good at explaining things, so you spending more time on it did not help more. Other people managed to improve my understanding much more in less time and fewer messages. Late Night Coffee 14:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee I would encourage you to focus on the big picture concerns being raised in this CFD rather than commentary on your opinions about other people. ^SMason_Garrison 14:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The reply was about my ability to understand categories. My point is that my difficulty understanding your messages isn't a good measure of my ability to understand categories because I don't have as much difficulty understanding when other people explain categories. You spending a very long time trying without success doesn't mean I am unable to understand categories. It just means that you and I have difficulty understanding each other. Other people might find you easier to understand than I do, I don't know if you spending a long time explaining to someone else has worked, but I know I found it more helpful to read the original guidelines or have someone else answer my question. LateNightCoffee (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have so much difficulty understanding me to the point that you make blanket statements about my abilities, then why are you still asking me about categorization at all or relying on my edits to learn? This question you posed about my revert from th 26th, really doesn't make sense to me Talk:2015 Bagram Airfield bombing#Category changes ^SMason_Garrison 12:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Because I made changes to that page, and you undid them. We disagree about that page, so I am asking you about that page on the talk page. Is there somebody else I should speak to about your edits? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Your question was extremely unclear. ^SMason_Garrison 17:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Then I was thinking of a "1 per day, except when..." But I think a 3 hour minimum gap works better than one per day with exceptions. It's simpler to comply with and enforce, and it gives me time to slow down and ask myself "do I really need to do all of these today? Or at all?" Late Night Coffee 09:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

This cfd I think is illustrative of LNC’s general approach and general difficulty with collaboration Mikewem (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you be more specific than "illustrative" and "general approach", please? Late Night Coffee 07:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, it looks like they were referring to the fact that you responded to almost every editor who disagreed with your position & began to overwhelm the discussion. True consensus can be hard to achieve if the discussion appears intimidating to outside editors - one person pushing back against any naysayers could easily make someone think "omg that's an argument I'm not going to touch, I haven't got time for all that", or even just "that looks scary, I wanted to say something but they'll say I'm wrong too so I won't try". Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty classic WP:BLUDGENing. ^SMason_Garrison 20:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I endorse this explanation and thank you Blue Sonnet for offering it Mikewem (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, It was for a category I created, so I thought my role in the conversation was to explain why I thought it was needed and respond to objections? Late Night Coffee 02:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You can leave it at the opening statement & not respond further, ideally everything will be covered there. Honestly it's pretty subjective, but whilst you're welcome to reply to pretty obvious errors or questions, it's also a good idea to step back and trust that other editors (or the person who's closing the discussion) will be able to judge the merits of each argument and filter out the poorer-quality ones. Whilst you're the nominator, you don't have to act as judge or monitor of the discussion after your nomination. It's a tricky balance, but if you're taking up more than perhaps a third (or even a quarter) of the discussion, it's usually a good idea to step back from it so you're not inadvertently intimidating anyone into not responding. Imagine you're a new editor who wants to vote to keep the article - if you see someone replying to every vote to challenge it, would you find it a little scary? Perhaps look through a few other AFD's to see how they went, get an idea of what's expected and what goes into a good nomination - you'll get a feel for it soon enough! Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, yes as soon as you pointed it out I thought the right answer was probably one "support" / "oppose" vote of my own + minimal replies. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean things nominated by me. I meant if someone nominates my article / template / category for deletion, but I presume that's similar? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this better? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 25, one response on each and only one reply to someone else's? I hope that's alright, @Voorts said I was allowed to edit that page but I should avoid doing the things that got me blocked. So I responded to the threads I had something useful to contribute to and avoided "bludgeoning"? Note: I highlight my signature in this thread so I can distinguish my messages from everyone else's, but I don't usually do that. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 10:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: I highlight my signature in this thread so I can distinguish my messages from everyone else's

You can do that with your Special:MyPage/common.js:

#bodyContent a[title="{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}"] { 
 background-color: #39807C; 
 color: #000; 
}

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn, Does that let me set a different signature for different pages or namespaces? I just turn it on and off in user settings by adding or removing a formatted version there. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

That only sets the CSS used to show you links to your own username. It's only visible to you, but it's a good way to highlight your own replies so you can more easily distinguish them from everyone else's. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be useful. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, "if you see someone replying to every vote to challenge it, would you find it a little scary?" I probably wouldn't be scared of that. I understand what you mean now, but I didn't think of it till you pointed it out, because I probably wouldn't avoid that discussion. I get stressed by ambiguous boundaries and unpredictable consequences, but I'm not very stressed by a heated discussion, as long as it's not on my own talk page. If the talk page notification box comes up every few minutes, I do get stressed. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it can be overwhelming! New editors are often still building their confidence, so they might be intimidated by discussions that seem to be going back-and-forth a lot. Experienced editors wouldn't mind it so much, but there are also times where people nope out if a discussion becomes too much effort to follow or overwhelms other notifications.

That happened to me a few times recently at ANI and AN, I had to turn my phone off and do something else since it was just too much at once. We've got a lot of neurodiverse editors, I think it's something that a few of us have trouble with (although everyone is different, of course). Blue-Sonnet 14:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, was the page I linked above and improvement? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 17:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you're perhaps being a little overcautious with this one (not necessarily a bad thing and understandable right now) - if you're being asked a direct question then I think it's perfectly acceptable to respond to it. There's only really an issue if you reply to everything indiscriminately, even when you're not being asked a question. Blue-Sonnet 02:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to reply to everyone's messages here because the main complaint was that I hadn't replied to messages. I usually had replied to the messages, but I replied on the author's page, or the talk page for the related content. So the archives only show the first message in the conversation. Late Night Coffee 02:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

End outdent:

Outdent ended. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• LateNightCoffee appears near-completely unresponsive to any concerns, with a hyper-fast archiving system seemingly dedicated to erasing any criticism as quickly as possible, such as splitting out smaller sections so they archive faster. I'd suggest a block from category space until they show clear awareness of WP's communication requirement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  They also have issues with templates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  The template dispute is resolved. It was about two templates for the right-wing terrorism page. They have both been deleted after being nominated by @PARAKANYAA. I don't intend to create a third without consulting other editors.

  I think creating the second was justified because it was sufficiently different, the first was a list of attacks in the style of {{Mass shootings in Canada}} the other was a very standard topic navbox resembling {{Good and evil}}.

  I know shouldn't create another version. There's not a third thing I could do that would be sufficiently different to the deleted things.

  The argument with @PARAKANYAA seems to be more about right-wing terrorism as a concept than it is about templates. Late Night Coffee 05:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agree, but, might be a good idea to elevate the temporary block to mainspace block as their actions aren't only affecting the template and category space, mentioned by PARAKANYAA, they also do mainspace edits. LithyLithium (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Mainspace temporary* Until it's sorted out here, or if it isn't, to prevent further damages in the meanwhile. LithyLithium (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I can't actually recall seeing any non-category mainspace edits that were problematic, mostly mundane, so I would oppose a mainspace ban at this stage (though a topic ban from categories would be another option). Every problem I have seen from them is about categories and templates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  A significant portion of their edits at 2025 Bondi Beach shooting were reverted as WP:COATRACK. Mikewem (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Categories should follow mainspace content. Unfortunately, there’s some evidence that LNC is happy to make mainspace content follow their preferred categorization framework, such as at Columbine, where they added an entire lvl2 section titled Suicide attack in an apparent effort to justify the addition of the suicide attack category to the article. The text of the lvl2 edit summary (in my view) suggests an acknowledgment and awareness by LNC that the content did not fit in the article. But they added it anyway. Mikewem (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hm, yes that does seem to be seriously problematic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I added sources to support the changes I made. This is exactly what I should do. The category was not more important than the text. If you let me keep just one, I would keep the text and remove the category. Both were good faith edits to improve the article, with multiple sources to support them. Late Night Coffee 17:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  The edit summary about the placement of the section was not about relevance, it was about the structure and layout of the article. The problem is actually that it's relevant in 2 or 3 sections:

  • Suicides
  • Motive
  • Copycats

  The information should be in the article, but I couldn't decide which section. Late Night Coffee 17:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Mikewem, in the page section you linked in your reverts, 3 sources mention Columbine, two of those call it a "suicide attack" and the third calls rampage shooters "suicide terrorists". The attacks they say don't meet the definition of "suicide attack" are proxy bombings and attackers who get killed by other people. Late Night Coffee 19:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I probably wouldn't add the other two if I was doing it today, but even they aren't excluded by the views in that section. Late Night Coffee 19:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is an example of feedback that I followed:

  A significant portion of their edits at 2025 Bondi Beach shooting were reverted as WP:COATRACK. Mikewem (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  When I first found that article, I tried to write a general overview of the related topics in the background section, using reliable sources that were mostly from before the event. For an event that happened only two or three weeks previously, this seemed like the best sources. People raised objections on the talk page, the consensus was that to decide what was relevant we should only use sources about the Bondi Beach shooting. After this discussion I followed this agreement. Late Night Coffee 14:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  LateNightCoffee appears near-completely unresponsive to any concerns, with a hyper-fast archiving system seemingly dedicated to erasing any criticism as quickly as possible, such as splitting out smaller sections so they archive faster. I'd suggest a block from category space until they show clear awareness of WP's communication requirement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's difficult to see what what I am replying to below, but I don't know if I'm allowed to move this sub-thread? So I added a quote box. Late Night Coffee 06:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I split out the sections so that I could talk to each person individually.

  I tried to set the automated archive to keep active conversations on the page and archive only those from people who had not said anything for a while. I miscalculated how the timing would work.

  I broke it up and kept auto archive short because, when the 4th person joined the same thread, I worried it would get far too confusing for me to understand what anyone was saying, and cause stressful misunderstandings. I was worried about missing messages or making other errors if the thread got too big. Previously when threads got too long to manage on my talk page. I got confused about whose messages were in which thread, and one time I accidently archived the wrong thread during a conversation. I wanted to avoid this sort of confusing mess happening again. Late Night Coffee 14:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Discussions take days to unfold, eighteen hours alone was definitely not enough time for concerns to be properly developed. Additionally, the splitting up of conversations into individuals further exacerbates the issue of topics being archived prematurely. It's possible to feel overwhelmed at how messages are formatted in talk pages - And that's understandable, but it will be to your advantage to understand how talk pages sections are formatted. LithyLithium (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Setting it to 18 hours doesn't mean it needs to be completed in that time, it just needs to have some recent activity in the thread. I thought this would be long enough for an ongoing conversation in different timezones. I also set it to keep two threads, so even if none had been active it would still keep the most recent.

  It took me a while to work out the error. My estimate probably does work for ongoing conversations, particularly with the "keep two" minimum, but I didn't allow for whose turn it was in the conversation. When I originally broke up the thread, I thought anyone who was interested in discussing further would reply, but Guy Macon was possibly waiting for me to reply.

  I had written a draft message to Guy Macon, but it was getting late, so I decided I should finish it in the morning. I should have extended the archive time, or changed it to 4 threads minimum, but I wasn't thinking about premature automatic archiving as a thing I needed to worry about, because if it archived before I finished the reply I could just undo the archive bot's edits before I replied. Late Night Coffee 16:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Conversations commonly last days, weeks, or even months, as you are aware of having read many talk pages. You appear to be managing to understand which ANI section you should reply to, without much confusion; please try to apply the same logic to your talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm am willing engage in extended discussions, for as long as they take, but I prefer to have those on article talk pages or other community spaces.

  I can find things in long conversation eventually, but I can't find every new comment as fast as people expect it to be found if it's on my talk page.

  I was trying to keep my talk page as a space where I could quickly find new messages.

  If I get a talk page message I read it straight away, but if there is a discussion on a page that can usually wait till next time I am working on that page? Late Night Coffee 20:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Article talk pages are not the place to discuss user conduct (WP:TALK). That is for user talk pages. If you are receiving so many messages on your user talk page that you can't keep up, just by reading the page or evenlooking at the history tab, that is a good sign you need to start working on those concerns. Summarily archiving them gives the impression that you do not think your conduct is worth discussing, even after other editors have attempted, at great length (155 kb!), to improve it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29, Those talk page messages were usually related to specific content and I responded in the relevant place. LateNightCoffee (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was trying to keep my talk page as a place that I could very quickly find new messages, and have longer conversations in other places, to help me prioritise what I needed to read first. Late Night Coffee 16:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "There is no deadline on Wikipedia"? I took a few days to respond to the deletion discussion for an article I wrote and it closed as delete before I got a chance to contribute. Late Night Coffee 20:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Their refusal to respond to criticism and their refusal to check many of their edits is the major problem. Also the speed. They will regularly make templates based on categories or see also sections without actually checking if any of the inclusions are appropriate for a template, or if they even mention the subject of a template - which they have admitted. They edit so much that whenever you've dealt with one mistake they made they've made 20 more. The terrorism categories are already a mess and this has not helped the situation. After a template was nominated for deletion they continued to add it to dozens of articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You are not the first to notice this. Here is their justification for the behavior.

Be aware that LateNightCoffee has a history of agreeing to do something, then not actually doing it. For example, here they agreed to a 15 day archiving period, but here they changed it from 30 hours to 18 hours. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've set their archive back to 15 days while the ANI is ongoing. ^SMason_Garrison 12:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not agree to that change. I said, "I'll change the automated archive to 15 days if you insist, but most things will probably get read and manually archived before then". You deleted my message, without archiving it. You didn't explain clearly why you deleted my message. It gave the impression that you were no longer interested in the discussion. It seemed inappropriate to delete without archiving, but I read the user talk page guidelines. They indicated that you deleting my messages and my short archiving time were both permitted. So I put my archive time back to my own preferred option and didn't raise any further objections about you deleting my message. I did not see you make any objections to, "but most things will probably get read and manually archived before then". Manual archiving is more prone to errors, so automated seemed like the better option. Late Night Coffee 00:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA, "They will regularly make templates based on categories or see also sections..." I did not do that "regularly" I did that twice. There were two templates that got deleted and I don't plan to make anything similar.

I was in the process of checking the appropriateness of the links when they were nominated for deletion.

My plan was to check as I added it to pages. In retrospect this was the wrong order, I should have kept it in draft space or my user space until I had finished checking. But at the time I expected most of the things in the category to be correct. Pages in other categories I've looked through are mostly correct.

I did check as I added the incidents list template to pages. The "not-mentioned" problem with that is that you and I disagree about what counts as a synonym for "right-wing". I think a page that calls an event or attacker "neo-fascist" or another ideology that is universally regarded as "right-wing" counts as "mentions the topic". Late Night Coffee 16:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

At first I was checking if the page described a terrorist attack, I didn't know until you informed me that I should check for if it specifically uses the exact term. After you raised that I changed the way I used those categories and I did go back through my old edits to change "terrorist incident" categories to "attack" or "battle" if needed. Late Night Coffee 16:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely partially blocked LateNightCoffee from the category and template namespaces. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Due to previous behaviour, I've added a clarifying warning. - jc37 20:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Jc37 Thank you for your clarification. Late Night Coffee 23:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The template dispute has been resolved. It only related to two templates, an incident list navbox and a topic navbox, both for the right-wing terrorism page. They both got deleted after PARAKANYAA nominated them for deletion. I have no plans to make any other templates for that page.

The disagreement was more about the scope of "right-wing terrorism" as a concept, rather than about templates as a content type.

If I think of a way to make a template for that page that solves the previous objections, I'll start a discussion to get a consensus before I create a third, but this is unlikely any time in the near future. Late Night Coffee 01:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• I would like to note that LNC has a habit of narrative pushing additions to articles, such as adding content to the 2026 Michigan synagogue attack article which implied an at the time unproven link between the killings of the perpetrator's family members and the attack., attempting to push the terrorism categorization onto the 2025 Grand Blanc Township church attack article and searching for anything to support their view (see discussion at Talk:2025 Grand Blanc Township church attack#Terrorism). They also created the 2026 Ghazali family killings article to support their narrative on the 2026 Michigan synagogue attack article. I happened to be here due to an unrelated issue and I saw this and decided to share because of my interactions with the editor. Raskuly (🐰) 20:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Link to deletion discussion regarding 2026 Ghazali family killings which also discussed the problems with the article. Raskuly (🐰) 20:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting to see another example of adding a section (lvl3 in this case) whose sole purpose appears to be the justification of a desired category addition. That’s certainly one way to make a WP:POINT. Mikewem (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I created that article about the family being killed based on feedback from Mikewem and others on Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting. In the previous discussion, I wanted to add a subsection to the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting about a very similar mass shooting at another location. Several sources about the Bondi event mentioned the other shooting, but Mikewem and others editors still insisted it was "off-topic". The information they linked indicated that a related event at another location should go in a separate article. For the other mass shooting, there was already a page about the similar event, so we linked the existing page. For the family who got killed in Lebanon, there was no existing page, the event was very recent and only mentioned on the page about the event in the United States, so I made a new page. Late Night Coffee 16:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I added a category to 2025 Grand Blanc Township church attack that I thought described the event. Then @Raskuly undid the edit and said on the talk page that it needed a source, so I added a source before I re-added the category. Originally Raskuly seemed to only be objecting to the weaker of two sources I added. After discussion on the talk page I accepted that the other source I found wasn't enough to add a category. I hadn't replied yet, but I read the feedback and followed it. I liked the suggestion of putting the source I added in "reactions", that fits better than my original edit. Late Night Coffee 16:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, "the 30 archive pages they have generated" 14:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC), I set the size limit for my archive when I was getting far fewer messages. I prefer it small, but it probably doesn't need to be that small, so I'll make it a bit bigger. If there's a way to merge some existing pages, that won't break the index or automated archiving, I could do that as well, but I might need to ask for help with that. Late Night Coffee 07:25, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• LateNightCoffee was blocked from the Template and Category namespaces on 20 April 2026 (UTC), yet they edited Category talk:Suicide bombings in Asia in the 2010s and Category talk:Suicide bombings in Balochistan (region) on 25 April. Is this allowed? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is LateNightCoffee blocked from the category talk namespace? No. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I am busy with offline responsibilities this weekend, but I would like some time to write a summary of my responses before this is closed please. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 06:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This thread will be automatically archived after a few days, perhaps it would be best to let it go? It's been going for a while and I don't think much else will happen with it.

Just carry on editing Wikipedia and, if you think it appropriate, consider appealing after you've got a decently long history of productive editing under your belt. Blue-Sonnet 07:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Now I'm not sure what to do. Maybe I'll try something short. I was waiting for a conclusion, a verdict or something? I have been given conflicting information by several different people about what the process is here. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes they die off naturally and get archived if no-one posts for a few days, other times an admin will close it with a summary at the top. Neither tend to happen when discussion is ongoing, so that's why I thought it might be best to leave the thread and see what happens to it over the next few days. Blue-Sonnet 08:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To the closer, LNC's unblock request is here: User talk:LateNightCoffee#Unblock request for template namespace, and was subsequently declined . ^SMason_Garrison 04:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any close is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, seeing as action has been taken and the discussion has gone stale, a closure might be necessary to actually sunset this AN/I thread, as people adding information (that may be redundant) or comments prevents the automatic archival system from doing it's job. LithyLithium (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Then the automatic archival system is doing its job, as the discussion is still active. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that a closure would be extremely helpful for LNC's understanding of the situation. ^SMason_Garrison 16:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You can request one at WP:CR where it will either be closed (archived or not) or the request rejected. That's the simplest way. CNC (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! The tricky thing is that if I were to make the request, then LNC will completely discount anything that is said as a result: User talk:LateNightCoffee#Creating blank talk pages Maybe @HouseBlaster could make the CR request? I think the LNC would really benefit from 1) a concise and clean summary of the concerns, and 2) having a clear unambigious end to the ANI itself. ^SMason_Garrison 19:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree on the need to close, I think LNC would appreciate this actually. I've been helping them find different ways to move forward & edit productively, so IMO this thread has done it's job. Blue-Sonnet 23:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, yeah, sort of, I was leaving it alone and waiting for it to archive, as you suggested. I didn't notice Mason (with an S) had resurrected it. I think I should attempt a summary before someone else tries to summarise it. I worry that an uninvolved editor trying to read this giant thread will write a very inaccurate summary? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's very unlikely - it'll almost definitely be an administrator & you can always reach out to them to ask for a correction if you feel the summary is unfair.

They're usually very basic, single sentence jobs of only a few words & the whole thread is still visible in the archive for anyone who wants to check. Blue-Sonnet 10:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I worried because I think my unblock request was misinterpreted due to being too long, and this is much longer. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I have requested closure. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I have a half day to catch up before close please. I was following @Blue-Sonnet's suggestion of letting it archive, I didn't see Mason (with an S) had requested formal closure. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 02:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@LateNightCoffee Please reread the exchange, because I did not request the formal closure. I said it would be beneficial, but asked that someone else make the request. ^SMason_Garrison 02:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have re-read the thread, but I already saw that you requested HB do the next step: "Maybe @HouseBlaster could make the CR request?" Describing the advantages of an action and then nominating someone specific to "maybe" take that action would be described by many people as a "request"? I wouldn't describe it like that out of context, I'd say "pinged HB to make the closure request" or quote your original wording, but the whole conversation is just a few lines above my comment. Requesting someone else make a request doesn't seem more credible, it just looks weird. You could have simply agreed with LithyLithium or thanked CNC, and made the request yourself. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Requesting someone else make a request doesn't seem more credible, it just looks weird. Happens all the time, or more than one might think. Often one editor will often suggest it, another editor will then submit it. Sometimes it's simply useful to have another editor to check something is suitable, just as a basic sanity check. No-one wants a CR rejected.

I otherwise think it was trying to avoid an argument about it, even if whoever requested the closure is of little relevance. An argument means an active dispute, an active dispute means it's less likely to be closed etc. No need to overthink it, please just let wait for a close now. Regards, CNC (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I wish I could find a clear help page somewhere, so I could know how the ANI process works. I spent weeks trying to respond to everyone here, but it seems it was maybe all over on the first day while I was asleep. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 14:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty subjective and a lot of it comes from experience - don't worry too much and just let the process run. A good rule of thumb is to try to only respond if someone asks you a direct question or there's a clear misunderstanding/very important information that you need to give. Blue-Sonnet 15:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

LNC is not wrong for desiring a WP:Guide to ANI. Ideally, it'd be included in every noticifation a user ever received as well, just so you know, it could make things easier for everyone. CNC (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You know, now I think about it more it could be a useful essay. I might look into writing something in the future, even if it's just basic do's and don't's. Blue-Sonnet 02:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that essay would be extremely benefincial to the community. I think that there are some good easys on WP:GAPB that would be worth making an ANI version of. ^SMason_Garrison 02:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It turns out there is one already! Check out Wikipedia:ANI advice. Blue-Sonnet 19:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Viewmont Viking has been systematically removing notable, sourced content related to international horse racing.

This includes removing G1 winners and Derby winners from Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan (even high-profile champions like Lucky Lilac, a 4x G1 winner).

The user is ignoring the notability guidelines for horse racing (WP:NHORSE), which state that G1 winners are inherently notable. These removals are being done without discussion and despite the presence of official sources (Jockey Clubs and Stud Books).

This behavior constitutes disruptive editing and systemic bias against non-Western racing jurisdictions.

I request an administrative review of this user's pattern from mass deletion fo valid content. ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, you are obligated to notify a user when you start a discussion about them here. I have done that for you now. Secondly, this doesn't look like it's something for admins - it's a content dispute for the talk page. Finally, however, personal attacks like this are not helpful. — Czello ^(music) 10:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. Reviver, please keep things in perspective: the user in question is not making removals to slight you personally. As a preliminary matter, whatever the criteria for a race horse having its own article, there is a pretty big issue with that list, which states that it lists "all racehorses that exist in the historical record", which, frankly, is not discrete enough selection to be realistic for a Wikipedia article, since it would certainly include thousands, if not tens of thousands, of names if it was to become exhaustive under that criteria, and would violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDB. I'm not sure what the solution is there, but it should start with discussion, not invective. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You're off by two or three orders of magnitude. Try "millions". EEng 10:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, to be clear, I'm talking just about racehorses which might at least arguably pass WP:GNG, not all racehorses which an editor may take an interest in. But even that more discrete number has to be, even conservatively speaking, in the thousands/tens of thousands? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

i agree, but the complicated part is: no one is interested in Brazilian horse racing to search or write about, old or modern, we have just 8 or 10 horses when our count is more than 100 at least... And just me isn't enough, I tried to convince to friends who are into it but, no sucess ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I know, but it's very frustrating to me due the lack of sources here in South America and i need to note and unite records, it's everything going well until he decided to erase everything that I've been working for weeks, i still young and immature, sorry for that... ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you please provide some diffs so we can see the context, Reviver? If we are talking about exceptionally old content which never had sources added to satisfy GNG, then there might be justification for some deletions, whatever the terms of the SNG. However, it sounds from your description as if the behaviour is systematic, which makes the case for that less likely. But it's critical that we see the disruption in context, and understand what efforts have been made to communicate concerns about this behaviour. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm still evolving on that, it should be easier if people just helped to provide sources and information rather than erasing them ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Viewmont Viking is removing entries from the list that don't have articles. There is of course no generalised policy that list entries should have their own articles; however, it is difficult to assess the notability of horses that are redlinks. However, since the list doesn't have a notability criterion at all (it merely says "This list includes racehorses that exist in the historical record.") there is technically no reason why such items should be removed anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What about their competitions who have bluelinks and their name said and stated from the exact year? ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's something that probably needs to be discussed and agreed on the talk page. By the way, Bal a Bali has an article so you can put that back - you were using Bal a Bali (Horse) which was why the link was red. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much '-v- now I knew my mistake...

Maybe I should start to make short wikis about the Brazilian horses who doesn't have one ReviverOfHistories123 (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that where a disambiguating qualifier is needed, it should be (horse) not (Horse). See WP:NCDAB. (I once cane across two identically-named Indian filmstars qualified as (actor) and (Actor). The resulting mess was the very devil to sort out.) Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Ira Leviton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For a second time (first report) I am reporting this user for repeated and continued miss use of WP:JWB.

There has been zero improvement since the since the first report a little over a month ago. Since then, on dozens of occasions I have personally had to revert or fix edits by this user as they failed to properly use WP:JWB and broke pages (one latest example is Special:Diff/1353288890). Despite numerous requests to WP:PREVIEW and check their work and check the regular expressions that they are using, Ira refuses to listen to anyone and is continuing to repeatedly break pages over and over. It is very clear from their behavior that they have an attitude of "this isn't my problem and I will leave it to others to fix this issue". I am all for WP:AGF, but this user has demonstrated none.