Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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:

{{#parsoid

--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 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)

Hello,

I am concerned about the conduct User:A455bcd9 has displayed to me and other editors regarding a content dispute at Talk:List of cities with the most skyscrapers. Namely:

WP:BLUDGEONING discussion sections

• A - See the entire linked section
• B - See the entire linked section
• C - See the entire linked section

(Denial of) WP:PERSONALATTACKS on editors and/or WP:INTIMIDATION to start WP:RFCs

• D: You don't understand anything. Why don't you start an WP:RFC if you're so sure of yourself?
• E: ...you're already been banned once for edit warring. Stop it. Join the discussion or start an WP:RFC.
• F: A user noted on A455bcd9's talk page: Perhaps you are correct, but you just made an offensive personal attack.... A455bcd9 proceeded to deny this: I did not make "an offensive personal attack". Stop your disruption and ask your mentor how to behave.
• Edit summary from Post I reversion below

WP:EDITWARRING with multiple users

• G was reverted by A455bcd9 with the WP:EDITSUMMARY Stop your stealth reverts
• H was reverted by A455bcd9
• I was reverted by A455bcd9 with the edit summary Wikipedia isn't a democracy. It's not about counting votes. Go to Talk:List_of_cities_with_the_most_skyscrapers#Sources and engage in discussion or start an RfC if you disagree.

My starting a WP:RFC did not stop A455bcd9's conduct

• J: As I was drafting my RFC at 15:57 UTC April 24, I reverted all of A455bcd9's edits made after 21:34 UTC April 16, as they were part of the scope of that discussion.
• K: At 16:14 UTC April 24, I posted the RFC I was drafting. In addition, I pinged A455bcd9 to give them permission to modify my RFC statement.
• L: At 17:32 UTC April 24, over an hour after I had published the RFC, A455bcd9 reverted me with this WP:EDITSUMMARY: Start an RFC first and don't republish unsourced + OR data.
  • I do not wish to speculate on the intended semantics of that edit summary. However, I interpreted it as an WP:ASPERSION, WP:INTIMIDATION, and WP:POVPUSHING, especially given that it took place during the RFC.
• M: An RFC participant called out A455bcd9 for WP:MISREPRESENTATION of their statements.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Addition to original post - I appreciate the comments that have been made so far. I would like to remind editors that the focus of this section is to determine whether there is a user conduct issue. Please feel free to discuss the merits of content at Talk:List of cities with the most skyscrapers. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• List of cities with the most skyscrapers is a prime example of the stupidity of so many list pages, containing as it does meaningless trivia such as Malaysia is the least populous country to have three cities with at least 30 skyscrapers. WTF?

  Bob: "Hey Marge! Listen to this! Did you know that Malaysia is the least populous country to have three cities with at least 30 skyscrapers? Isn't that fascinating?"

  Marge: "Why yes, Bob, that is fascinating! Feed me more empty trivia based on randomly generated criteria about clusters of skyscrapers! I find I'm strangely aroused by it!"

Lists are often crapmagnets, and require a far disproportionate amount of administrative intervention. We should have been rid of them long ago. EEng 04:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This is essentially the problem and why I intervened to focus on a simple listing with one RS (see diff). AndrewPeterT did not contribute to the article in the past weeks, nor did he join the discussions. But he suddenly started an RFC that is not well formulated. He acknowledged it as he said you are welcome to rewrite my WP:RFCBRIEF question in a way that you believe better represents the situation.: is that a way to do an RFC?! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The optics of this report do not provide a positive image of the filer, User:AndrewPeterT. There had been extended discussion on the article talk page that was inconclusive. User: Sawarijoshi then requested moderated discussion at DRN. Sawarijoshi and User: a455bcd9 replied, and I asked them what changes each of them wanted to make to the article, since the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Then a455bcd9 said that they thought that there had not been enough discussion on the article talk page, and that further discussion followed by an RFC was in order. I closed the DRN, but said that I was available to assist in formulating an RFC. At this point AndrewPeterT jumped in, having not been previously involved. AndrewPeterT first made a large edit to the article, and then launched an RFC. The RFC contained the provision that either Sawarijoshi or a455bcd9 could change the wording of the RFC. In my opinion, that was a strange provision, because changing the wording of an RFC after editors have responded makes it very difficult to close. AndrewPeterT had not taken part in the previous discussion, and jumped in with an edit and an RFC, and then made this report to WP:ANI. Sometimes an outsider can help to resolve a complex dispute. This does not appear to be such a situation, but maybe they are trying too hard, and are entering the dispute with more courage than caution.

I suggest, first, that the article be fully protected for a few days to stop the edit-warring that seems to be starting. Second, either the editors including AndrewPeterT can resume content discussion on the article talk page, or I am willing to begin moderated discussion again, or an editor can submit a nomination for deletion , using a deletion reason that may or may not include crapmagnet. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe deletion is the right path here. If we keep deleting pages every time there is one user who unyieldingly disagrees with everyone else, we won’t have much of Wikipedia left. Sawarijoshi (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If the pages deleted are all absurd list articles like this one, that would be a great result. EEng 02:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The skyscraper article doesn't seem to have any reliable sources talking about cities in the context of how many skyscrapers they have, so I wouldn't have expected us to have an article about it - if we don't have specific criteria for what can become a list, where does it stop?

Cities with the the most roads/bungalows/traffic lights? Do we even have a guideline for lists & if we don't, should we have one?

I don't want to derail but I've seen this brought up a few times.

Since this is the sort of thing that AI can easily dump out, we might need a pre-emptive strike (presuming we don't have a guideline, of course, but I haven't been able to find one). Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blue Sonnet, in my opinion, that's a slippery slope fallacy. Skyscrapers are notable. Traffic lights are not. A skyscraper is well-defined, i.e., a habitable building taller than 150m. Moreover, the List of cities with the most skycrapers also has a well-defined criteria for inclusion, i.e., cities with 30 or more completed skyscrapers. These align with the requirements given at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#List membership criteria.

Nevertheless, we now digress from the scope of this discussion (conduct of a455bcd9). If you would like to discuss this with me further, please start a topic either on my Talk page or on the WP:SKY talk page. Sawarijoshi (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

a well-defined criteria for inclusion, i.e., cities with 30 or more completed skyscrapers. These align with the requirements given at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#List membership criteria – No, it does not so align, because the guideline requires that Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. So tell me: what reliable source came up with ...

• "country with the most cities that have at least 30 skyscrapers"
• "most skyscrapers in East Asia outside of China and Hong Kong"
• "most skyscrapers of any city without a supertall skyscraper"
• "the southernmost city with over 30 skyscrapers"
• "only city to have skyscrapers on two continents, Asia and Europe"
• "Makati, with 55 skyscrapers, makes up less than half of the total number of skyscrapers in Metro Manila"
• "least populous country to have three cities with at least 30 skyscrapers"
• "only city in South America with at least 30 skyscrapers"

What reliable source set 30 as some touchstone? And why does the page switch to 50 in "Hefei is one of 16 cities in China with at least 50 skyscrapers"? And that's before we get to "the city with the most skyscrapers changes if alternative definitions for skyscraper are used". Oh, do tell.

It's all arbitrary made-up WP:OR junk, with no meaning and to no purpose. The page should be deleted. EEng 04:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia is not a guideline, but an essay. The actual guideline is WP:LISTCRIT and there has been substantial debate in recent months over the guideline (see the talk page). Katzrockso (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

My rationale for filing this ANI was not to resolve content disputes, but note conduct from A455bcd9 that I believed was problematic, irregardless of the merits of their arguments. Indeed, multiple of my diffs address comments that were made at venues other than DRN. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Have no comment on the conduct in the OP, but just wanted to raise the issue that after six editors had already !voted in the original RFC, @A455bcd9 has since changed the wording with entirely new questions. nil ^nz 05:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Per Robert McClenon above: The RFC contained the provision that either Sawarijoshi or a455bcd9 could change the wording of the RFC. In my opinion, that was a strange provision, because changing the wording of an RFC after editors have responded makes it very difficult to close. I reluctantly did so given how poorly the RFC was drafted: it was irrelevant to the ongoing discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree that it's messy – me raising it here was in the hopes that someone with a lot more experience than I have at running RFCs might know the best way to proceed. nil ^nz 05:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

So a455bcd9, while agreeing that the RFC was poorly drafted, has made it worse by changing it after editors had already replied. Can an uninvolved admin come in and cancel the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have submitted a request at Requests for Page Protection for temporary full protection. It may be a useless request if the editors just go to the article talk page and continue to post past each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have experience in setting up and launching RFCs, but my opinion is that changing them on the fly is never a solution. I had offered to prepare an RFC, but I would have discussed first, rather than writing it first and changing it in midstream. At this point, I think that the RFC has become a wounded animal. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I struckthrough my "reformulation", sorry. Still, the RFC should be closed as it is irrelevant to the article. My "reformulation" would be the basis for a new RFC. We should discuss it first, your help is welcome. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I don’t see how this RFC is irrelevant to the article. There have been multiple topics of dispute on this page, and this topic (whether counting is OR) is certainly one of them. More importantly, since A455bcd9 has consistently kept directing other contributors to start an RFC for nearly every disagreement ("my way or the highway"), it is contradictory for him to now define the scope of the RFC. The responsibility for framing the RFC should rest with the contributors who were repeatedly told to initiate the process in the first place. Sawarijoshi (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

AndrewPeterT is not such a contributor. And yes it is irrelevant: counting what? The RFC must give the context. Anyway, I agree with Robert McClenon. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue with this RFC was AndrewPeterT’s statement that the scope of the RFC can be updated. There was no issue of lacking context. In the RFC, AndrewPeterT provided links to two Talk page discussions where this topic had been discussed in the past. @A455bcd9, you may feign ignorance of these discussions – just like you did on the DRN – but the fact remains that this topic was discussed and you were very integrally involved in that discussion. If you still disagree, I am happy to provide links to specific snippets just like I did on the DRN (before you decided to withdraw from the DRN). Sawarijoshi (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not how an RFC is done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have explained to you elsewhere why I started that RFC the way I did. As I have implied elsewhere in this discussion, this was not a place I should have been in at all.

Also, since we are discussing "proper" RFC procedure, I cannot recall the last time an editor repeatedly requested to multiple users that they disagreed with, even through edit summaries, that said multiple users start an RFC as a means to resolve disagreement, as the diffs in my original post show you have done.

Finally, I must be honest. It is concerning to me that you have not acknowledged the impact of your words and conduct on me, as I explicitly note in Diff L of my original post. Regardless of the merits of your content arguments, I deserve to edit in an online environment where I do not feel intimidated. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. In all honesty, I believe that it was completely reasonable to expect that someone start some RFC on this matter, no matter how poorly done, especially after having told multiple editors to do so. Moreover, it is especially frustrating to be told that an RFC is irrelevant or should be "reformulated" when A.) said user did not have the initial responsibility to do so, B.) still went above and beyond to bring about what another user requested, C.) faced WP:TLDR when trying to understand the context, and D.) posed a question that others acknowledge is relevant. See also these comments. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Question 1 - Does either Sawarijoshi or a455bcd9, or anyone else, want assistance in formulating an RFC? If so, my user page is available for preliminary discussion so as not to interfere with an existing RFC, unless and until a real RFC is launched.

Question 2 - Is a trout in order for composing an RFC that says that other editors are invited to change what the RFC asks?

Question 3 - Is there a user conduct issue here? If not, should this thread be closed before anyone either becomes uncivil or starts throwing boomerangs? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Robert McClenon.

Answer 1 – Yes, I intend to start another RFC which covers a slightly different issue (closer to the topic I started on DRN). I am currently occupied with personal work and will need a couple of days. Thank you for offering your assistance once again. I will start a topic on your user talk page soon.

Answer 2 – I don’t have a strong viewpoint on this – neither for nor against.

Answer 3 – After extensive discussions with A455bcd9 across multiple topics and multiple Talk pages, it is my view that his edits and Talk page discussions are no longer in good faith and are against WP:NPOV. Despite a dozen attempts to discuss a specific precise topic (exhaustive coverage of CVU), he has repeatedly avoided this discussion and always jumps onto other issues to change the topic. I have given 11 such examples here. Moreover, there have been multiple instances of inappropriate conduct. Examples listed here. I probably wouldn’t have started this ANI myself. However, given that someone already has, I feel compelled to share my views about A455bcd9’s inappropriate conduct. Sawarijoshi (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Just a question. What would be done about this if decided? Skyeteam (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Skyeteam - What will be done about this is what is decided? If an editor requests that I assist them with an RFC, we will work on and possibly launch an RFC. After the RFC is closed, it will decide the content of a portion of the article. If it is decided that there isn't a conduct issue, this thread will be closed. If an editor says that there is a conduct issue, we (the community) will decide whether there is a conduct issue, and what to do about it. Is there another question? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Thanks for explaining. Skyeteam (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made an AFD nomination, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities with the most skyscrapers.Blue-Sonnet 18:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Question 3a - Is there a user conduct issue here? If so, does someone want to propose sanctions against a user? If there isn't a conduct issue, or if no one wants to propose sanctions, should this thread be closed because the content issue is being considered by the AFD? (Yes, whether an article should exist is a content issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I should say there is a user conduct issue. @A455bcd9 has consistently made replies and comments not in good faith. I would support sanctions. I'm not gonna propose what, because I wouldn't know what to propose. However, I will support any sanctions against @A455bcd9. ----Skyeteam (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this comment. Yes, there is a user conduct issue here with A455bcd9. All of my evidence can be found in my initial post. In addition to that, A455bcd9 has not acknowledged the impact of their words on me at all in this section, instead choosing to focus on my supposed misconduct with respect to starting a WP:RFC. I have repeatedly explained that my choices on that matter were made because I was put into a position I should not have been in whatsoever.

  Since we are discussing sanctions, let me propose two firmly:

  1. First, A455bcd9 will apologize to me publicly in this section for making me feel subject to WP:INTIMIDATION and WP:ASPERSIONS.
  2. Second, A455bcd9 will acknowledge that content disputes are not an excuse to engage in WP:POVPUSHING, WP:EDITWARRING, and all of the other offensives I have noted in my original post.

  Failure to do so, including in other content disputes, will result in additional WP:ANIs being filed against A455bcd9. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reading through this thread, A455bcd9's responses have addressed numerous tangential issues and their behaviour in those regards. However, it does seem like they are avoiding addressing the central issue at hand, which are the actions which this ANI calls attention to. Their refusal to engage with the substance of users' critical remarks, or even specific questions that are posed to them, is quite obvious from the linked discussions. It is hard to see how their behavior on the given talk pages could lead to a productive outcome due to their deflection, complete lack of engagement with reasonable and specific questions, and reflexive invocation of WP: shortcuts in place of constructive responses. Transgenderoriole (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Adding to @AndrewPeterT, I think they should apologize to all users involved for the same reasons. ----Skyeteam (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree completely with Transgenderoriole and Skyeteam, and I support broadening my first proposed sanction to request apologies to all involved users. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is there anything else for proposed sanctions? If not, I think we should move to decide whether to impose these ideas. ----Skyeteam (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:EEng, who was temporarily blocked for incivility as recently as a couple of years ago and seems to be fairly regularly brought to ANI for incivility going on 10+ years now, has gone on a tirade during a move discussion of a page he created here against multiple editors including myself. Some choice quotes include:

...save everyone time by withdrawing this nomination...

Mildy? My powers of condescension must be abandoning me.

I guess you have as much trouble reading essays as you do reading policies and guidelines.

Now please go back to editing about video games (...) and leave serious editors alone.

And after being warned about his inflammatory language, You don't seriously expect us to sit still for a stylistic lecture from someone who writes run-on sentences and doesn't know what hyphens are for, do you?, You're wasting your breath... against a new editor who was participating in the discussion with well reasoned arguments.

There does not seem to have been any lesson learned from previous incidents in the slightest; on the contrary, it seems that he was just emboldened by the apparent slap on the wrist, wag of the finger. I don't think being a veteran editor should give you a get out of jail free card to say such hateful things against other editors, but maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I gave fair warning that I would report it if he did not redact his obvious personal attacks against me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

...As an addendum, the user's talk page is a whopping 1 million bytes, presumably to stymie any attempt to discuss his problematic conduct. There are even complaints about how it causes other users' browsers to chug, mine included. It would be very difficult to hold a typical discussion there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you please provide the diffs that show EEng violates WP:CIV and WP:AGF? Plus, it seems (as of now) that EEng's talk page is rather small, and all the bytes may be just because of the thing at the top. Their userpage is quite large, very large, it made me lag far too much.

I started noticing EEng while ANI patrolling, as I saw them often replying and discussing people in ANI reports. From my perspective at the time, he seemed like a chill editor with no problems. But I'd like to see the diffs just for me to take my side on this report, because I don't really have an opinion here, as I haven't seen a problem with his editing, although the block in 2024 will absolutely affect my side here. Thanks, diffs please :). Jetwindy-☎️-✈️ 22:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's all on the same discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment#Requested move 30 April 2026. Blue-Sonnet 00:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It crashed my terminal, somehow. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm resisting the urge to post Template:Facepalm here. That addendum strikes me as throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, given the lengthy history of such complaints and the general consensus that people should find more productive things to edit about. But as for the main point of this report, that move discussion is being WP:SNOW opposed by every editor who has responded there at the time that I write this, so it appears likely that the requested move is going to be found to be without merit. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

So are you arguing that disagreeing with a requested move makes personal attacks allowed? Otherwise I don't see how that's relevant. This is about the behavior within the move, not the move itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm not a defender of personal attacks, but there is an ambiguous continuum between heated disagreement and personal attacks. Here, you have made a proposal to userfy an essay, and everyone who has responded there (now including me) has said that the proposal is without merit. Would it have been better if EEng had restricted his comments to the merits and demerits of the proposal, instead of pointing out how you have gotten things wrong? Yes. Is this something that rises to the level of needing administrator intervention? No. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(I apologize for the late & long reply)

A move discussion created without merit is no excuse for inciviliy, even if it is being SNOW-opposed. However, since EEng has a very long history of getting blocked, and then unblocked shortly later, I unfortunately doubt anything will come of this discussion unless a new civility precedent will be set by the Schrocat arbitration case, allowing for an uncontroversial block/other sanction, or if this report of an unblockable editor acting in poor conduct gets escalated.

Regarding your second point: Would it have been better if EEng had restricted his comments to the merits and demerits of the proposal, instead of pointing out how you have gotten things wrong? I don't see how EEng was pointing out how you have gotten things wrong, assuming you mean the condescending and bad-faith remarks showcased in the middle of ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's starting comment here, although they did provide an example of the watchers of WP:POSA nearly-unanimously opposing a move discussion, indicating that another move discussion would get opposed as well.

Regarding Men Kissing's comment: I agree on you on really everything you said, although as somebody who was formerly a very active Wikipedia reader, and thus somebody who has seen a wide variety of conduct disputes, including several revolving around EEng, I was a little surprised that you haven't seen previous conduct disputes about EEng before, but every editor has different experiences, of course.

In this case, I'd recommend you see EEng's block log, and the diffs/examples/URLs that administrators have pointed to in it.

Yes, I was aware of the extent of EEng's incivility during that discussion, however, I didn't decide to do much about it since I doubted action would accomplish much, and I hoped that EEng would learn to be more friendly in the rest of the discussion after I admonished him for incivility, but I know see that I am wrong on both of those assumptions. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 01:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Since the new fad here seems to be belly aching about how long talk pages are, I'm going to belly-ache about how long this ANI thread has become (but apparently it's OK to be overly long on ANI even if it's a crime to do it on EEng's talk). Anyway, I guess I'll put this reply here.

You raise some points in direct reply to me, about whether EEng's comments were personal attacks, and those are substantive issues that I should indeed reply to. So I'm going to go through each of them, one-by-one:

1. "...save everyone time by withdrawing this nomination...": No, that's not a personal attack, and it's not particularly escalatory. Even a day later, it's very clear that the nomination will never get close to getting consensus, and it, along with this ANI drama, is indeed wasting a lot of editor time.
2. "Mildy? My powers of condescension must be abandoning me.": That's more self-deprecation than it is escalation, and it's not evidence of something requiring admin action.
3. "I guess you have as much trouble reading essays as you do reading policies and guidelines." Yeah, that one I don't like. There's a credible issue that the nominator has a view of policies, guidelines, and essays that is contrary to that of all the other editors in the move discussion, but I would not have expressed it that way.
4. "Now please go back to editing about video games (...) and leave serious editors alone.": I don't like that one, either.
5. "You don't seriously expect us to sit still for a stylistic lecture from someone who writes run-on sentences and doesn't know what hyphens are for, do you?, You're wasting your breath...": There's a context, and after all, the essay in question is about competence in writing for Wikipedia, but still, that makes a third one I don't like.

I think that's a fair evaluation. And what I said was: "Would it have been better if EEng had restricted his comments to the merits and demerits of the proposal, instead of pointing out how you have gotten things wrong? Yes." I still think that's fair, too. So what I'm seeing is an incredibly lengthy ANI thread filled with lengthy comments by people who complain about lengthy talk pages (huh?), and all manner of elevated affect, over three comments that were to some extent provoked, but which also were net negatives. Beyond that, I'm still seeing spaghetti being thrown at the wall, a lot of over-reacting, and no valid reason for admin action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

How does several comments being very long demote an entire argument? Before EEng "archived" every thread on his talk page, it was well over one million bytes. This discussion will never reach close to that unless 30+ users get involved, and it gets listed on WP:CENT.

Since the new fad here seems to be belly aching about how long talk pages are when EEng's talk page was over a million bytes, did it load easily for you? There are a number of issues with extremely long talk pages that have already been brought up in this discussion, so we aren't belly aching about how long talk pages are, we are discussing automatic archiving of EEng's talk page in the hopes of getting it to a consistent size that doesn't slow discussions, or repel new discussions. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

To give a serious answer about my being able to edit his talk page, I wouldn't try to open the entire talk page to edit it. But when I open an individual section to add my comment to what someone else has posted, or when I start a new talk section, I don't have a noticeable problem. And there's nothing extraordinary about my computer or my internet connection. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Ohh, so you would manually type in a URL for a specific discussion, with &action=edit&section=x appended to it, so only that section loads? That is a smart idea, although not very many editors would do that, and really, most editors shouldn't need to do that, hence the ongoing discussion about manual archiving. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 22:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh no, and I'm wondering if that's where you are running into problems. I don't do that at all. For replying in an existing section, I merely click the edit button at the top of the section, and for starting a new section, I merely click the new section button at the top of the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was: When you want to edit only one specific section of a page, adding that URL appendix can send you to source-edit the Nth section of that page. I barely ever do that, if ever, but what I normally do is normally load the talk page of EEng, (or really any other user for that matter), waiting for the page to fully load before I press any buttons or keys.

Like I have said before, it takes my Chromebook over a full minute to load that 1 million byte page, and 2 extra full minutes when hitting any "edit" button, and then another minute or two to save my changes. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, I go to his talk page, use the arrow-down thing to go to the bottom, find the section, and click the section-edit link, and it takes me nowhere near to that much time. I've been in a lot of discussions like this one, and I get the impression that this is often a matter of the internet connection, although it can also be a matter of browser settings or something else. I also tend to think that WMF needs to do more with the underlying software here, to improve load times. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Then that means you must have a very good computer. I run it on super fast internet, and still get lag on my Chromebook (haven't tried on the best computer in the house since I don't normally edit on it), like around 1+. That isn't normal on my end, so I believe it's a length issue, not a software issue. If it were software, other issues would pop up, but its getting the information from the server issue, since browsers use ram to show the page, and 1 million bytes is a ton for it to register, especially with there being images that require it to pull from another site at the same time it's registering text. This slows down the rendering engine for Chrome and other browsers, since its quite hard to optimize a giant amount of content length without using a whole lot of RAM. It's not a software issue, but its a hardware issue. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 00:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm using a Dell desktop with a reasonable amount of RAM and a reasonably good video driver, the current version of Firefox as a browser, with a broadband cable internet connection. It's good, but nothing out of the ordinary. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. I don't know exactly how MediaWiki works, but I am currently trying to fully figure it out, as I do have access to see the repository. The main reason why the proposal was reopened was due to it going to be requested to be re-archived again next year. Also, just shoving all the posts into a single archive didn't really fix anything, since it would still be the same length with the same issues. (I think the main issue with the page was probably the amount of images, but I don't know fully.) SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 00:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

presumably to stymie any attempt to discuss his problematic conduct. Is a major failure to WP:AGF. I think, like much of EEng's behaviour, the overlong talk page is a sort of self-aware crotchety 'trolling,' given that I have at least once before seen him respond to criticism of the length of his talk page with something to the effect of "just for that, I'm going to make it even longer." Athanelar (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh it is that, it 100% is - it's the same sense of humour that my dad has, I can see it a mile away! Blue-Sonnet 19:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you go full Dr. Evil when you said "one MILLION bytes"? Asking for a friend. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 18:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Now please go back to editing about video games, where apparently it doesn't matter whether what you say makes any sense or not, and leave serious editors alone. is indeed a personal attack. The rest of EEng's participation in that thread, I also find escalatory. Telling an editor to withdraw their nomination to avoid wasting time is also, as Blue Elephant identified, condescending. EEng, I tell you this candidly because I expect that I can with you: knock it off.

Nonetheless, their reaction was well provoked, and I see no evidence that this represents any sort of pattern of misconduct. "Three years ago" is not recent enough. If you do truly believe that EEng exhibits a pattern of incivility that you are unable to resolve talking to them personally, then you need to provide a list of diffs spanning more discussions.

I do wish EEng would trim their talk page, even if it's kinda funny that it's so long, but EEng is definitely not keeping their talk page long to dispel critics of theirs as you are suggesting. That is a textbook example of assumption of bad faith on your part, Zxc. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 01:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure how their "reaction was well provoked". The move nomination did not try to impugn the original creator at all, and was purely on the merits of the essay and whether it was within guidelines. A simple "actually no, because ____" would have sufficed. I admit that the statement about the talk page might be an assumption, but I also cannot see a clear reason why the page would be left that way that isn't some form of discouraging discussion. I can't really see the hilarity in making people wait a full minute to load editing, especially if they use visual editor and not just code. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The first two comments on your list are civil and the others came after multiple editors had given you what you suggest here “would have sufficed” — but obviously it didn’t suffice to get you to withdraw the proposal, as you continued to argue the point. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's an essay that I expect EEng rests a lot of his pride on; he's the primary author and curator of it, and it's well liked in the community. It's even referenced in the WP:EDDY he got, see User_talk:EEng#Editor_of_the_Week.

Maybe that's not rational; deleting or demoting something that someone wrote is a necessary evil we commit many times a day on Wikipedia, and I'm sure EEng understands that. But I do think that for that particular page, one ought to exhibit a bit more patience with EEng specifically.

Still, "well provoked" might have been too much. I walk that claim back partially. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 12:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, Eeng is one of my favourite Wikipedians, but bluntly, I don't give a flying fig what their motivation is for thumbing their nose at the expectation to maintain their talk page within reasonable size constraints: the time has come for them to grow up on this issue and let go of their affectation. Users do not own their talk pages, which are vital spaces for administrative notice, dispute resolution and various other communication functions which are prescribed to take place there and which other editors have to adhere to. And, as the existence of this and a fair few ANI threads over the years demonstrate, Eeng doesn't exactly shy away from conduct that might necessitate another community member having to reach out to them in that space.

Whatever it is about refusing to regularly archive their talk page that tickles Eeng so much, it is not reasonable for them to expect us to indulge that impulse or indifference where it creates significant technical issues for anyone who has to load the page. As far as I have experienced, literally every single one of our tens of thousands of historical veteran editors has managed to keep their TP to a reasonable size, except for the singular exception of Eeng. Nor is it as if Eeng is unaware of these issues: I'm quite confident I have seen it raised on this forum alone at least a half dozen times over the years, and every five years or so, Eeng concedes the point and makes some sort of token effort to get out from under scrutiny of the matter, but never adopts ongoing management of the issue and that TP is soon back to breaking browsers.

Honestly, I think it's a statement of disrespect to the community, intentional or not, that Eeng is willing to force us to potentially have to WP:CREEP out a rule about the maximum byte size of a user talk to address the obstinacy of one user, instead of just spending five minutes every two years doing what literally every other single one of us does voluntarily and without having to be told to do. At this point, I'd be more than happy to support a proposal to require Eeng to use an archive bot, if they won't manage the matter manually. And again, this is someone who is fond of Eeng speaking: the issue is just that blatant and unambiguous to me. I'm going to reserve on the claimed civility issue and leave that to others. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

My phone legitimately crashed and locked up the last time I tried to look at EEng's Talk page - I had to do a restart! It was a pretty old phone and I've got a slightly newer one since, but I haven't dared to go back.

It's a pity 'cause I like EEng, but it means I can't use their Talk page to communicate. It's basically a stress-test for electronics. Blue-Sonnet 10:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I recall that they have two archiving scripts installed—probably for decoration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As a sanction EENG's 'humour', they should be made to implement the standard archiving settings on their talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

One benefit of that monster of a talk page - very easy to see all the ANI threads / blocks etc. that have accrued over the years... GiantSnowman 12:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, the talk page should be forced archived. Even if it's being done purely because the user is stubborn or finds it humorous for whatever reason, it is in contravention of being WP:HERE, specifically the part about being willing to work collaboratively with others, which a talk page that breaks browsers and hard crashes phones simply cannot allow.

It's unfortunate that mockery that can easily drive away editors permanently can be handwaved away, but I guess it is as BlueElephant said - a new precedent should be set for "rock star" type editors who believe it is fine to trash the proverbial hotel room again and again. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You both might want to have a look at Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I support this, but I don't think we should force this to happen immediately. EEng recently said he's been going through a lot of stuff IRL. I'd rather give him a chance to set up archiving the way he wants, so I think it should be a deadline, something like, "you have to commit to adequate archiving of your talk page before the end of May, or else it will be set up for you." MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 12:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support any effort, even third party, to place arching on EEng's talkpage. Just tried to look at it and on a 500mb connection with an exceptional desktop pc for gaming it still took seconds to load.

I'd hate to think of anyone trying to work with that on any mobile device or less powerful pc. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, such a long talk page is disruptive, entirely unnecessary, and at this stage, must be deliberate. GiantSnowman 13:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I am a participant in the RM and I find EEng's behavior there inappropriate and against community norms. The fact that I and every other editor in the discussion agree with EEng on the merits of the RM is not an excuse for bad behavior. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The essay in question seems like a clear case that should be kept in WP-space, as well as his other major essay (WP:Diffusing conflict). However, the latter has some content which really should be kept in userspace, such as content which seems to promote his own narrative ("Sometimes people write lengthy posts at WP:ANI, or propose Arbcom cases, or use the images on this page, in hopes of defusing a situation; however, the ensuing drama often means the conflict is diffused instead"). The "guide to appalling blocks" is also something which uninvolved (no, not univalved) editors should take a look at, which in my opinion is too personal to belong in project space. Somepinkdude (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This thread is about EEng's conduct in the merge proposal, and arrogance over the size of his talk page, so if you want to talk about whether the essay belongs in project-space, you can go over to the talk page of WP:POSA and add to the growing list of opposes. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 17:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support formal warning for incivility. Skyshiftertalk 22:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

A warning is pointless at this stage. GiantSnowman 10:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The userfy discussion has been snow-closed as not moved: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

so, when's the arbcom case? because i can't wait! ltbdl (write) 00:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My terminal will no longer open after viewing that userpage. Please advise. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 03:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Turn it off and on again? If that fails, ask Moss to call 0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3. Blue-Sonnet 03:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

EEng's talk page has cursed your terminal to eternal crashing? Call an exorcist maybe? ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Incivility from "experienced" editors is a bit of an epidemic, it's true. Some recent ArbCom decisions have clearly demonstrated this. Frankly, the kind, non-acrimonious way forward - when whippersnappers with no clue show up making the same old problematic edits to GoodPages(TM), or try shaking up some old traditions like the talk page at issue here (or whatever the hell Bishzilla's pocket is) - is nebulous, at least to me.

Although the history of incivility is there in this case to an extent, this seems different to me. The fundamental tone and timbre of EEng's comments overall seem much less harsh than those of what I would call the "truly toxic" greybeards. I don't know if it's the self-deprecation, or the fairly sophisticated, quirky humor; perhaps it's because he eschews twee, foppish bons mot when discussing others with his peers. Further, not only do I see a qualitative difference, but a quantitative difference. It's certainly not a good thing to see, but it's not copious either.

Last, the issues of page moves and giant talk pages are done and dusted. Therefore, I support a SuperTrout, and urge that we move on. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 13:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Seconded, although I'd prefer if EEng kept the banter for those who would appreciate and understand it most and err on the side of caution with the newbies - that's what I initially thought was happening when I first encountered them!

My colleagues and I make some pretty rude & extract the urine from each other regularly, but we know to keep it inside the team until we can properly guage the temperament of any new starter.

That sort of thing is easily amplified on the internet thanks to it being, well, the internet. Strong troutage. Blue-Sonnet 14:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't say I buy the idea that this was all just some poor taste brand of humor. The fly in the ointment is that he was directly informed his words were hurtful and asked to stop insulting people, and continued with it unabated, as can be seen by the timestamps in the messages. He then proceeded to not apologize in the ANI discussion itself, doubling down on him being right and saying he fears nothing.

I'm also far from a "newbie" and started editing in 2006, and I have never seen that sort of toxicity directed at normal editors outside of vandals who got banned quickly. I don't interact with editors outside of Wikipedia, but I don't think I'd want them to act like that even if I did. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

That's the problem, isn't it - I guess it would be better to say that it should be limited to those who know EEng and who they know will won't be upset or offended.

Anyone else should be treated cordially and politely, or at least neutrally, if that makes sense. It's very subjective and I may well have a much higher tolerance for this than others thanks to my father having the same sense of humour. This is just how I honestly feel on the subject - the fact that others don't feel that way is a strong sign that it should be kept within a small circle of those who know EEng well. Blue-Sonnet 10:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Over the last three years, Popward123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has amassed a talk page full of warnings, and they were previously blocked briefly for a lack of communication. While some edits they perform have been constructive, over the last few months their edits have been growing more and more disruptive. All of their edits have been minuscule but disruptive nonetheless, such as adding periods at the end of captions, or repeated cosmetic edits. Despite being warned numerous times on their talk page, they haven’t responded there since February and have continued to make the same edits that edits have raised concerns about.

I’m beginning to feel that this user may well be a net negative to the project, taking up more volunteer time than they’re making useful contributions, and attempts to resolve this amicably via talk page discussions have failed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

To add some weight to this you will see that multiple editors have taken issue with Popward123's editing, so it's very a much a community thing. See, for example, this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#Popward123. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also add that I'm familiar with the issues and benefits of having editors on the autism spectrum (WP:AUTISTIC), and that transport-related topics can be more of a honeypot than Wikipedia as a whole, but equally I think there comes a point where the behaviour of editors on the spectrum becomes an issue, as it is here. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

A quick search of the editor's contribution history shows less than 100 edits in total to talk pages of any kind on site. It does seem to suggest that the editor has trouble communicating on talk pages, or perhaps doesn't like communicating on talk pages. Perhaps a block from the article space would be a good idea to see if that helps get the channels of communication open a little wider than they currently are? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I’d normally agree, but it’s worth pointing out they have already been blocked for communication issues Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that they edit articles on other subjects, and I only see the tranport-related edits, so if there are no problems elsewhere then perhaps a topic ban on London and/or UK transport articles? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

We could consider a topic ban, however i'm unsure how much that might help, particularly with people who disorders of the mind as they tend to act like offshore drilling rigs and park over one specific area. Being told to shove off and do something else may result in more drilling else where or the use of the platform in an attempt to chase off the boats saying scram. A long term block from the article space could work - in theory - but that may end up pushing the problems with editing onto the talk pages via spam use of the edit help request system. A middle ground here could be mentorship, but I am uncertain if that would help in this case either. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. An interesting thing is to look at interactions after their April 2025 block for not using edit summaries. This complaint was about editing on rail articles, so afterwards the edit summaries were huge - way disproportionate to the size of the edit itself and would have taken longer. But they did produce edit summaries (mostly) on rail articles thereafter. However, since the block they have given no edit summaries on non-rail articles - presumably because they were only sanctioned for edit summaries on rail articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we could look at logged editing restriction(s) then? If we got a reply the first time around we may get some beneficial behavior out this round too. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

particularly with people who disorders of the mind as they tend to act like offshore drilling rigs and park over one specific area

With all due respect, what in the actual fuck? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

"...disorders of the mind" - yep, that's a well very known symptom of Alzheimer's. Parkinson's, too, now I think about it. Depression, anxiety, the list goes on...

BTW are you trying to create a simile for hyperfixation, except you're applying it to waaaay too many people in a not-very-sensitive-and-should-probably-be-reconsidered way? Blue-Sonnet 17:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I agree some action is needed and dialogue has failed. Their last edit to Kilburn tube station, after being asked specifically not to edit transport pages any more without first discussion, suggests WP:NOTHERE. They are frustrating the article writing process and have been doing this for some time. MRSC (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I just checked their edit history for the tag "reverted" and there were over 700 items (10%). Not too bad, until I realised that just over 200 of those are from the past four months. Blue-Sonnet 14:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Some time ago I promised myself I would not revert their edits unless they were on featured content, otherwise that's all I would be doing here. MRSC (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There's not too much point if they're not overtly disruptive & too numerous, so that means the true rate (of edits that qualify for reversion) is probably much higher.

No-one should ever have to clean up after any other editor & it's always sad when it gets to the stage where you start asking whether you should. Blue-Sonnet 15:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't come across them lately, but this sounds similar to when I was issuing warnings, and a block, to them back in 2024. A lot of poor decisions and failing to follow through on the basics. Disappointing to see it apparently hasn't gotten much better. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I would heartily agree with some action being taken. The most recent thing made made me facepalm was this - saying "I will stop" and then immediately breaking that promise.

OK, MRSC. I won't edit any transport-related articles. If I see something that I think needs to be changed, I'll write about it on the talk page. Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And yet following that you went ahead and edited two more transport articles. <snip> 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Turini2 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think a block is deserved for breaking a voluntary restriction, especially as they undid a previous edit of theirs. I am also less than convinced by the quality of some of the advice/replies they have been given, e.g. changing the caption on Russell Square tube station from 'Station entrance' to 'Russell Square station' is so obviously wrong it should not need explanation (link) or That makes literally no sense (link). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

TBH the whole point of engaging them was to give them a chance instead of taking them straight to ANI. The pattern just repeats and repeats and the frustration of others grows, e.g. User_talk:Popward123#Piped_links? which was discussed and agreed in November, discussed again a few days later, then back again just a week ago. To give some context to the example you give of the caption, they had gone through multiple station articles (typically) changing the "Station entrance building" to "XXXX tube station", which was less than helpful. They had already been told through revert summaries not to do it, I had commented in the immediately previous section on the talk page, and yet still it carried on. So many editors have had to clean up after this one individual. We shouldn't all have to do that. We are here to improve content not be janitors. If frustration comes out in a talk page discussion then to me it's understandable sometimes. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Popward123 Saw you made an edit - do you have any comments on the above? Turini2 (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@TomStar81 so Popward123 was invited to comment here two days ago, has ignored that invitation and has in fact carried on editing the very same articles they promised to stay away from (diff). What next? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

They've used their own Talk page less than a month ago so they know it exists. I sent a third prompt to them earlier in case more urgent phrasing might help, but it's strange that they've ignored two notices already for a relatively experienced user (nearly 8k edits). Blue-Sonnet 19:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Keeping this open as they appear to have developed ANI flu Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

~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)

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

User:PBugaboo has repeatedly harassed me despite my attempts to avoid them in order to prevent lengthy arguments between us (as see at Talk:Act III: This City Made Us, where they repeatedly engaged in bad faith and edit warred with me). I also have before asked them to leave me alone due to their repeated bad faith engagement with me. Recently, they joined a conversation on Invincible season 4, where they did not discuss the larger issue and only joined to paint a poor picture of me to other editors . I believe I acted collaboratively in that discussion and worked within the WP:BRD cycle, even suggesting a compromise after having policy be cleared up to me. After their involvement, I requested them to stop harassing me and following me around Wikipedia , to which they said I was DARVOing them and ignored my request/issue with their harassment, when I have continually avoided talking to them for the past months due to this disruptive behavior (as seen on the talk page for Act III and Invincible). Within the past month, the majority of their edits have been in argument with me. I have repeatedly tried to engage in good faith with them, even congratulating them on their work with a barnstar , but they keep insist on ignoring my good faith to continue to paint me in poor lights , even in unrelated conversation. I can recognize that I am an imperfect editor and have edit warred, even recently, but I am trying to improve and engage in good faith at every chance I get. PBugaboo has repeatedly engaged in bad faith and continued to interact me unneccessarily despite my requests for them to stop. I just want them to leave me alone, or at least engage in good faith with me instead of making me seem like a terrible editor and a bad person at every chance they get. Please let me know if I should get more diffs for their bad faith engagement and harassment and I will go searching if needs be, but a lot of it can be found in the Act III discussions. Thank you. IzzySwag (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Painting you in poor light is no harassment. At least I do not see harassment in the diffs you linked. I am not active on the ANI noticeboard, but I find that many times good and contributing users go to war with each other over minor issues. The best way to avoid this for you, IzzySwag and PBugaboo too, aside from any direct insult or incivility, would be avoiding each other. I think that we are all "harassed" to some degree in heated debates, and we are "harassers" sometimes too. Best to you all. CoryGlee 01:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I requested them to stop harassing me and following me around Wikipedia Do you have any diffs to confirm they're actively following you?

I'm looking through the links you provided but I'm not seeing anything particularly egregious - you were shouting at one point (ALLCAPS) but otherwise it looks like a normal, albeit slightly terse discussion. Both sides were slightly snarkier than they should ideally have been, but that's it.

From the outside, it looks like two editors who don't get on and should maybe consider avoiding each other before things escalate.

BTW I edited your post since you provided links as references instead of diffs, please see Help:Diff. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the Invincible season 4 diff should show them following me, as they have never interacted with Invincible before and joined the discussion only to attack me. I understand if that would not be sufficient proof though.

I'd be fine just avoiding each other (and ideally, that's what would happen, I think Pbugaboo is a fine editor outside of this) and it is what I have tried to do but Pbugaboo joining that Invincible discussion as they did today makes me feel as if they do not have intention to leave me alone.

Thank you for updating the links, I wasn't sure how to format them for this. Will keep in mind in the future. :) IzzySwag (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Honestly, PBugaboo shouldn't have brought your conduct up here, but being fair you were slightly hostile to a well meaning and polite comment here.

Otherwise, I think if you can both agree to try to avoid each other - nothing official, just taking a moment to check edit histories & noping out if you see the other person - would go a long way to resolving this, I'm hoping.

If they follow you across multiple articles when you're actively avoiding them, that's obviously concerning and should be brought up.

@PBugaboo, I'd like to please hear your thoughts on this when you have a moment? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the ping. I’d be happy to agree to avoid each other, though as I noted earlier today it seems that Izzy’s well-established and long-term pattern of behaviour (which I have previously tried bringing up with her on her talk page) will continue to disrupt other pages and other editors, as it has done prior to her interacting with me and as it has continued since I’ve tried to talk to her about it.

While my own experience editing would probably be improved by not interacting with Izzy it seems pretty apparent that she will continue acting against the spirit of collaboration (being rude to other editors, delete content, etc). I don’t think it’s appropriate to just hope that she finds another person to argue with or another page to make disruptive edits on.

As I said, I am happy to agree to mutually avoid Izzy, but I think that the concerns I’ve raised about her own conduct warrant some form of action (even if it’s someone in authority taking notice and suggesting she cut it out and be nicer to people - as it didn’t seem to make any impact when I did so on her user page, nor did the dozen other editors coming to her user page in the past).

She has a long history of getting into fights that she justifies by saying she got heated/frustrated, resulting in edit warring, arguments in talk pages, belittling people on user pages, deletion of content mid-discussion, making edits that go against policy due to personal preferences, and so on. It was truly shocking seeing her talk page history and all the other people trying to discuss her behaviour with her, without any apparent change (often the page just being blanked by her). Her edit history is rife with conflict, this is by no means a me-specific issue.

Happy to discuss further and provide links to specific examples of the behaviour I’ve noted, if desired. Otherwise an informal agreement to avoid each other is fine by me, though it will leave her conduct unchecked at the detriment of whoever next experiences the same things I (and many others) have. PBugaboo (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It's my understanding that you would have to open another ANI report, PBugaboo. Unless it falls under WP:BOOMERANG. But I doubt it. What do you think, Blue Sonnet? CoryGlee 02:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah no worries. If it should be a separate matter I can collate some links together to establish the WP:RUNAWAY pattern of behaviour but I might not be able to get to it immediately, I lately only seem to have my commute time and breaks to make edits PBugaboo (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The thread above us going a little nuts so it's hard to edit! I think it could be a subsection under this report (add one more = to the header), that way everything is kept together. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I've done what you suggested? Please change it if you think it wasn't right. Thanks! IzzySwag (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Blue Sonnet. Yes, I see the same as you; the thread above is going off a deep end. Thanks for this input. As always. CoryGlee 02:54, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Is this another content dispute about Act III: This City Made Us? If so, I have at least two comments. First, there hasn't been any discussion on the article talk page for three weeks. I don't see any recent discussion there. Second, there was a discussion involving these editors and that article at DRN that was resolved satisfactorily in January 2026; see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_268#Act_III:_This_City_Made_Us. I do see that PBugaboo made an unpleasant comment about IzzySwag, but at the same time said that they have been able to work out conflicts by DRN or RFC. If there is a content dispute between these users, about Act III: This City Made Us, Invincible season 4, or something else, I am ready to mediate at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute at Act III (there is one at Invincible season 4, but not one involving Pbugaboo (but you are also free to give your thoughts there if you wish!)) but thank you for your willingness to get involved and thank you for showing a past dispute that got resolved satisfactorily. IzzySwag (talk) 02:32, 27 April 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)

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)

Mighty Beaver 1953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is a WP:SPA created in January to edit the 2026 Conservative Party of British Columbia leadership election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page and candidate BLPs, favouring certain candidates over others and blatantly pushing their POV into articles via editorializing and WP:PEACOCK language.

Today, in edits like this, they refer to their preferred candidates' endorsements in glowing language (businessman and television personality -> business magnate and star panelist on hit TV series) and introduce self-published endorsements contrary to established WP:ENDORSE policy. here, they add irrelevant puffery to their preferred candidates' background, while removing their past relevant background as part of the BC United party. But wait, here, they refer to their preferred candidates' opponent as a "BC Liberal MLA" (former name of BC United) in amongst other editorializing language and while establishing they will edit war to get the info on Elliott in the article. They have ignored a talk page message from last night and/or edited logged out to reply to it. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Dan Gurney is deliberately deleting sourced information on multiple candidates in an election because (Redacted).

dan’s message received a prompt reply.

he continues to delete sourced information in order to slant the article in favour of Iain. Shameful behaviour.

gurney selectively only deletes endorsements from pages not about Iain. He has deleted the Gordon Campbell endorsement, sitting MLA endorsements, etc

they are not self published, these are news article cited endorsements.

dan is disguising the fact (Redacted). ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Dan complains about adding BC Liberal/United to Iain’s profile, but he has, 3 or four times now, done the exact same to multiple other candidates, and editorializing his perspective on events in those roles. Again, (Redacted). This is ridiculous. How do we suspend him from editing these pages, it’s not appropriate or ethical for Dan to edit war (Redacted). ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider the fact that Dan Gurney died in 2018 and can't have possibly done any of what you're accusing him of... MSport1005 (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think they mean the editor GhostOfDanGurney? Blue-Sonnet 18:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I was going off that assumption too. Hi, MSport1005, hope you're doing well. Outside of Motorsports, particularly in Canadian politics articles, other editors often just call me "Dan", which I'm used to. Though, considering what this one is accusing me of, I would find it very funny if they don't know the legendary racing driver and they actually think my name is "Dan Gurney" and are trying to tie a "Dan Gurney" to this Iain Black political candidate. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ghost, hope I find you well too — It all makes for an amusing read for sure. These politicians would be honored if they knew they have the endorsement of Dan Gurney! MSport1005 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the belly laugh. PS: WP:ASPERSIONS ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth I was pinged to the article by MediaKyle in order to help clean up the multiple instances where self-published sources had been used as a citation to an endorsement, assuming choosing me because I was the one who pushed hard for such policy to be enforced at 2026 New Democratic Party leadership election. I find the immediate, specific, evidence-less accusation of being a staffer for the very candidate that MB1953 has been adding snide terms like "fired" to to be hilarious. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:PBAN

@WP:PBAN

GhostOfDanGurney ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have non-public evidence of conflict of interest you can email it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Do not post it publicly. I have provided further info on outing on your talk page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok will send an email there. Thanks for instructions on ho to do that. ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

ARBCOM knows my first/last name and my location isn't difficult to glean from my edit history (spoiler: it's in Ontario). This is just a brazen attempt to deflect from my OP. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Your OP is inaccurate and you ignored the substance of all replies. ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you MB1953, and if not, why are you here on their behalf? My OP has diffs for evidence. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of replying here (while logged in), MB1953 has instead uploaded two copyvio images of their preferred candidate to Commons, claimed as their work, and added them to the article. At this time I am proposing a block as clearly NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-27146-70 and/or @Mighty Beaver 1953, can you please confirm whether you:

1. do own the copyright to those photos as per your copyright declaration, or
2. do not own the copyright and made a false copyright declaration?

If #1, what is the nature of your relationship to the subjects of your photographs?

Many thanks. Blue-Sonnet 11:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I was given permission to use the photo by the owner. I have no relationship with the photo subjects. I just asked the owner because I was making the Wikipedia page and needed a photo. ~2026-27146-70 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming - did you already know the copyright owner? I'm just wondering how you knew who to contact for an image. I'm also a little surprised that they were happy for you to declare it as your own work in the license and not attribute it to them, did they give you consent to do this as well?

BTW It'd be great if you can please edit whilst logged in, so we can be sure that we're speaking to the right person, thanks! Blue-Sonnet 04:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

MB1953 has also created the BLP article Caroline Elliott, which has been nominated for speedy deletion as TOOSOON and overtly promotional, while admitting to posting here while logged out. Can we have some sort of action now? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 13:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It is with great reluctance that I am reporting Skeptic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are a valuable contributor and I request that if at all possible this be handled without a block. I am hoping that an administrator can convince him where I have failed to do so.

The main issue is that

• At Skeptic2 confirms that he is Ian Ridpath.
• As discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#If you go down to the woods tonight ..., much of Skeptic2's activity on Wikipedia consists of citing or writing about Ian Ridpath.
• At User talk:Skeptic2#COI Skeptic2 has been very reluctant to agree to follow WP:COIEDIT and WP:DISCLOSE.

Again, it is my hope that this can be resolved without any sanctions. I cannot emphasize enough how much I value this user's contributions. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

What is more problematic is that this was noticed because Skeptic2 made some reverts trying to keep content cited to his website in an article and that made it to a noticeboard. I am also a little concerned about edits to the biography at Ian Ridpath (both from the named account and a number of signed edits from IPs) and other places where there is editing about their views as a named person (Rendlesham Forest incident, The Sirius Mystery maybe others, I haven't combed through their contribution list).

I share Guy Macon's hope that Skeptic2 can learn about and accept the community's expectations for COI editors, now that he is aware of them. MrOllie (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This is very disappointing. The COI issue was brought up improperly back in 2018 . Skeptic2 was only recently notified about WP:COI in an appropriate matter. Maybe this can be addressed with a clear warning that he should be following COI very carefully from now on, discussing possible changes on article talk pages rather then editing those articles directly whenever the coi warrants it? If he agrees, then I'd hope it could be settled there. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have advised them about the existence of

• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest

and encouraged them to join us here and discuss this. Let's wait and see what they do. User:Skeptic2, I cannot emphasize enough that we are all pulling for you to accept the community's expectations for COI editors and to continue being a productive editor. You really have done some fine work in the area of astronomy, and we all appreciate that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear Guy, Thank you for your kind words regarding my contributions to Wikipedia, some of which I understand can be interpreted as COI. Our discussion on my Talk page covered three possibilities:

1. Use of the COI tag. This seems to me to be subjective and we may not agree.

2. Changing username to my own name. This seems to be simple and transparent.

3. Block and/or cessation of editing. I do not see how this would benefit Wikipedia.

Since Hipal thinks it unnecessary to change username, I would like to invite you to add the COI tag where you think necessary. This would solve any differences of interpretation. As I have said before, I have no reason to conceal my real name and have no concerns about being identified. Will this resolve the matter to your satisfaction? Thanks, Ian. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hipal also suggested that you could add {{UserboxCOI}} to your user page. For example, you could add {{UserboxCOI|Ian Ridpath}}. I would highly recommend that.

Although changing your username isn't necessary or sufficient for WP:DISCLOSURE, I suspect you're right that it would go a long way in practice towards making it clear to folks that you're trying your best to be transparent. If you want to do that, you don't need to re-register (and you probably shouldn't). As described at WP:UCREQUEST, you could just make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple or Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Again, you definitely don't need to do this unless you want to!

Just so you know, I already added COI tags in some places for you a couple days ago. After noticing your initial disclosure at WP:FTN, I added the {{connected contributor}} tag to the talk pages for Ian Ridpath, The Sirius Mystery, Rendlesham Forest incident, Astronomy Now, Norton's Star Atlas, and Universe: The Definitive Visual Guide. Cadddr (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SummerandWinter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user wants a drawing of Muhammad removed from the article. Their attempts were reverted twice by WWGB, citing WP:NOTCENSORED, and the third time by me. I subsequently reminded them of WP:BRD. Then followed a fourth revert with the edit summary You keep reverting and you will be banned. You have no right to show imagery that was responsible for the killing of the man the Wikipedia article was made by. By these standards, you are no better than the teacher - arguably, even worse - in your conduct. It has no place on this article, it adds nothing, and is features unnecessary nudity. I also received a message on my talk page along the same lines. This behavior is of course unacceptable, but I'm involved and request that others take action. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Voorts: I have reopened this since @Victor Matheus Amaral: has continued the same dispute. I have EC protected the article to stop the disruption, and hopefully avoid further blocks. Star Mississippi 00:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  I noticed the event in recent edits. I verified the image and it does not have reliable sources using it, only obscure blogs and Reddit — Victor Matheus Amaral 00:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Was not an edit made in bad faith — Victor Matheus Amaral 00:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If you thought the problem was improper sourcing, then why was your edit summary the image you tried to insert is highly offensive and does not justify the little encyclopedic value it could add? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Because it is. I also sent a message to the guy who last tried to introduce the image, and there I said the image had improper sourcing — Victor Matheus Amaral 00:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been a concern when you initially explained your edit. That only became your expressed concern once your attempt to censor Wikipedia got pushback and you found yourself facing scrutiny. Did you make any attempt to find a better source? I agree we should have a better source than an archive from Gawker, but you also suggested that this is a hoax; do you honestly believe in good faith that the image in Charlie Hedbo is actually a hoax ? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Star Mississippi protected the article at 00:11, 6 May 2026. I said to the guy about the unsourced sources at 23:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC) and you guys mentioned me at 00:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC). So I made the message before public scrutiny. And I know the image exists, but what we don't know is if the image that is present in the article was the original one. You missed the point — Victor Matheus Amaral 01:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If you know the image exists, then why did you write No reliable sources have shown the image. It could even be made up? I'm sorry, but from the shifting explanations and the convenient timing to suddenly jump into a controversial removal, my distinct impression is that you want the image removed, whatever approach you need to use. But since I don't think you'll convince me, I won't beat the dead horse anymore. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I will note, however, that it took me about 25 seconds to find an NBC News source characterizing the image in the same way. . CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. But I am still against the inclusion of that image, for the same reasons present in my edit summary. I will not further discuss this topic. — Victor Matheus Amaral 02:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Voorts' first block for disruptive editing was proper to stop the immediate disruption, but the exact content of the edits is troubling beyond the initial disruption/edit-warring.

• The imagery undermines the point of the article, and makes the reader, understandably, hate the teacher who was killed. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to showcase disgusting and Islamophobic content. So, I removed it.
• You keep reverting and you will be banned. You have no right to show imagery that was responsible for the killing of the man the Wikipedia article was made by. By these standards, you are no better than the teacher - arguably, even worse - in your conduct. It has no place on this article, it adds nothing, and is features unnecessary nudity.

This isn't at all like edit-warring at, say celery or Ford Taurus, and I'm really troubled that this is on the edge of suggesting that the murder victim is the offending party in the crime reported in the situation, and editors who also exercise their right to express speech in accordance with Wikimedia's terms of service are similar guilty (or, "even worse"). And this diff in the Crucifixion of Jesus requires a lot of good faith given the contentious nature of the topic and that it creates an unresolvable contradiction in the lead. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

to be clear @CoffeeCrumbs, I did not mean to imply there was an issue with @Voorts' block. It was the correct course of action. Just that the block did not resolve the issue so I was reopening the thread vs. opening another since there's already an unrelated thread about @Victor Matheus Amaral's edits. Star Mississippi 00:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you were casting shade, I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't implying any issue with Voorts' action. I rather over-clarify than under-clarify! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Apologies for misunderstanding @CoffeeCrumbs Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment @CoffeeCrumbs and Star Mississippi: Actually, I don't think that second image which the user keeps removing does belong in the article, but for a completely different reason. It's a non-free image, we already have one Charlie Hebdo non-free image in the article, and this second one is not being used to illustrate the topic which the article is about, but is illustrating the issue of the Charlie Hebdo killings themselves, which we already have a perfectly serviceable article about. I'd say the use of that image fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8. Black Kite (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's a perfectly reasonable position! But neither of these editors were citing that, but were transparent attempts to censor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  I have no opinion on whether it belongs or not @Black Kite and haven't even looked into it. I simply protected the article because Victor picked right up from the edit war of the now blocked editor. I'm explicitly saying not a sock, that's not a concern here at all but we were headed for an edit warring block I wanted to avoid. I opened a thread on the Talk when I protected it Star Mississippi 13:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Victor Matheus Amaral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So I have decided to file a report here, as I am seeing this user is just pushing their POV on the talk page of Linux, and will not back down on their arguments. When someone contests them, and they don't respond to their comments, they say something along the lines of you ran out of counterarguments and are desperately trying to bring down the discussion using fallacies. Can someone assist with this, as I have ran out of patience with them. Pinging @Guy Macon as the person who initially pointed out Victor's bludgeoning. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am simply asking them to stop getting off topic and using fallacies and senseless comments. If they had not done this, the discussion would have been shorter. I summarized my arguments, and all their responses were cynical fallacies that did not address the topic. You can make your own judgment by reading the talk page. I ask you, please, not to bring down the discussion. I invited additional people whom I believe can add value. — Victor Matheus Amaral 20:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The above comment is typical behavior. See Talk:Linux#Bludgeoning for a lot more. Victor Matheus Amaral is being extremely disruptive, even after the ANI case opened. . Pretty much everyone else on both sides of the "Linux or GNU/Linux" content dispute has been civil, posted reasonable arguments. and posted them a reasonable number of times. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Very civil "I am annoyed and I will report you" — Victor Matheus Amaral 21:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that though. That is you implying I said that. I said

I'm to the point we should move to AN/I. @Guy Macon should I go in and file a report on this, since I am just going to get more annoyed the further this chat goes on. They are pushing their POV constantly. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This comment was due to me seeing the whole talk page, and how they were reacting, especially the reactions to when I made a comment on there. It annoys me when someone thinks that their opinion overrules all, and all objections are invalid to them. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 21:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if he had said it, "I am annoyed and I will report you" is not uncivil. It may not be couched in feelgood flowery euphemisms, but it's not insulting. Ravenswing 22:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I will not push any more arguments favorable to my "point of view". I also started an RfC to address the discussion in an appropriate way. — Victor Matheus Amaral 23:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you promise to stop pushing towards your POV? I'll be satisfied with the results if this is the case then. Just be cautious of doing more of that again, since you already have some people watching that behavior.

Just so you know, renaming the article from Linux to GNU/Linux would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, which is why it is Linux in the first place, since GNU/Linux isn't the common name, we use to talk about Linux. The RfC was SNOW-closed as everyone was just pointing out the mistakes in the argument (so it was basically getting nowhere) SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 01:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I too would be completely satisfied with a promise to stop POV pushing and bludgeoning, and I consider the above "I will not push any more arguments favorable to my 'point of view'." to be such a promise. I move that we pause this report until either [A] there is further disruption dated 6 May or later. or [B] it times out and gets autoarchived. I always like to see a face-saving way out; if the behavior stops that's all we should care about.

I see that they are now in the middle of another contentious topic -- whether a drawing of Muhammad should be removed from an article. I see no obvious disruption so far, so this will be a good test of Victor Matheus Amaral's ability and willingness to play nicely. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I will not do that anymore. I respect editors' consensus — Victor Matheus Amaral 16:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who just read the whole thread(s) when I saw the RFC on Linux, I wholeheartedly agree that we are seeing an egregious case of WP:BLUDGEON (something I admit I had been guilty myself here when I was much younger). Victor, I understand you feel frustrated and I understand you feel there is nothing wrong in arguing one's own point -I know, I've been there. But other editors are right, such a behaviour is just disruptive. It adds nothing and wastes everyone's time. You've made your point abundantly clear, now there's a RfC, back off. --cyclopia^speak! 09:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not frustrated, but I appreciate your comment. I just pushed the discussion beyond reasonable limits because it was a recurrent topic in the Linux article and I wanted an "everything or nothing" discussion to end it all — Victor Matheus Amaral 16:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)