Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

I wonder if any uninvolved admin could have a look at the work of User:Bhdshoes2, spread out over a few talk pages and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overview of Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do! I am getting absolutely dogpiled by superfans who keep smearing me like i am editing in bad faith (I am not) . We are still "doing it" because five new accusers just surfaced in the past week in the mainstream press (they filed a civil lawsuit), and the Leaving Neverland suit is the subject of new estate litigation. Certain single issue editors want Safechuck v. MJJ Productions deleted as well as Category:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2: As an uninvolved editor, I do believe that you're participating in good faith. But I also believe that you're causing yourself a lot of unnecessary grief by doubling down and assuming everyone else is acting in bad faith. I don't see any single-issue editors there, I see long-time respected members of the community citing legitimate deletion rationales. People are going to be understandably suspicious of your motive if you're so insistent on including content that's critical of someone, especially if you argue with everyone who disagrees with you. Wikipedia is hostile toward people if it seems like their edits are meant to "expose" someone or spread awareness about a scandal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

OK but they started it. (That was a joke- please don't ban me). I will be less snarky. I would just ask folks to engage with the content of my edits and not me personally like I'm some kind of suspicious character! It feels like "hey look over there" and an excuse to revert good edits. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2 what's up with Did you intend to give yourself a single topic notification or someone else. If someone else I do hope you didn't intend to put that notice on Drmies talk page since that's a laughable claim. If you intended to give it to yourself that's fairly weird, there shouldn't be anything in there you need help remembering and this isn't CTOP alert it seems pointless to give yourself a notice so no one else needs to. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No to my page to ward off the superfan dogpile who post on my page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

To be frank, Bhdshoes is a cold man. Michael's dead. ~2026-15034-31 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful. Either engage positively or say nothing. • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

All of a Wikipedia account's activity is publicly viewable. The accounts you're calling "superfans" aren't even active in the Michael Jackson topic area. They're active at Articles for Deletion, where they routinely vote to delete articles for the reasons they explained. I've never seen this sort of doubling down and attacks against fellow editors end with anything except for being blocked from editing. I can only assume you'll accuse whatever admin imposes the block of being a "superfan" too, regardless of whether they've ever written anything about Michael Jackson in their lives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

oh im sorry- I didn't mean to insult. Or to double down. What I meant was, was to tell that poster that I absoluteky meant to put that "single issue editing is uncool" sign on my page since they thought it was a mistake. I used that phrase as shorthand meaning my thought process at the time I posted it to my own page. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC).

How about rather than posting pointless notifications to yourself, you just cease editing voluntarily so someone doesn't have to block you. Alternatively improve your behaviour so there's no need to worry about notifications. Nil Einne (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was unnecessarily accusatory in saying that Drmies was a single-issue editor in support of hiding well-sourced allegation material. My familiarity with that editing cohort is behind my mistake. FWIW, i did attempt to make peace just now on the talk page for yet another disputed Jackson page Safechuck v. MJJ Productionsnot that I think Drmies has any obligation to engage!) Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bhdshoes2, Wikipedia is not news, and any single update to anything about the Jackson case(s) (on either "side") is not automatically qualified for mention on Wikipedia (undue, not notable, recentism, etc). When your edits have come under question, one of your responses was, for example, "how will researchers find/do anything?" But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database on all Jackson information, just like how it's not a flight itinerary, a travel brochure, or a soapbox. It's supposed to have a balance of detail for the average reader, so not all information is included. This is why other editors think you're coming from Reddit (not in the malicious sense), where a lot of subreddits focus on trivial documentation of everything possible. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a Wikipedia thing. I hope this helps. Crystalespeon (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

That is fair. I do think though that if a reader wanted to know in 2 minutes how many accusers accused any other celebrity (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump) they can look that up on Wikipedia. Readers can't for Jackson. It seems like simple encyclopedia basic information to me, not an esoteric deep dive into Jackson minutia. But i hear you.Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I think it's important to remember that even if you are right (or you think you are right), if consensus says otherwise, you have to be patient and work together, and compromise with other editors. You should get a good result that way. Happy editing. :) Crystalespeon (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

yup. Thanks for your kind words Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look because of its edit summary; something about Special:Diff/1342434083 and the conversation leading to it is ... "cringe". The entire discussion could use a focus on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, at some point it gets to be a ridiculous time sink, and that's where uninvolved admins need to come and step in. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

user:Drmies I believe that comment was addressed to your comments as well. .Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

While true, I think the message got across :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

As I’ve posted elsewhere, this editor, along with a few other editors, appears to be coming from a subreddit. Some of which have already been banned already in the past. I previously took this user to the admins’ noticeboard for disruptive editing, WP:CANVASSING, and offsite canvassing on a similar topic, per the suggestion of NinjaRobotPirate about three years ago. HandThatFeeds even suggested blocking this user based on a personal attack mentioned in that specific thread. The editor stopped editing similar topics only to reappear after yet another discussion on Reddit, as you can see here and here.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

this is total nonsense. Once again you refuse to engage with page content so pivot to smears. You accuse EVERYONE of canvassing on Reddit. I distinctly remember you accused me falsely 3 years ago, the last time i edited these pages. The obly reason I am back on theMJ Wiki pages is because 1) the Robson trial is back all over mainstream press given estate dispute and 2) five new accusers from the Cascio family are in the press of last week. nd 3) wikipedia should be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. . Instead of smearing, why not explain why you keep redirecting Safechuck v. MJJ Productions to a 1993 page? Or why you keep trying to get Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit: fixed link) deleted? There have to be content reasons. ~~~~ Bhdshoes2 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This is still ongoing with Bhdshoes2 failing to understand what Wikipedia is not and trying to pick fights. I find it hard to believe Bhdshoes2 can contribute constructively in this topic so long as they believe the editors cleaning up WP:ADVOCACY are actually some cabal of Michael Jackson superfans trying to sabotage coverage of the sexual abuse allegations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

wait what have I done wrong since I got brought up on charges? Have deleted the S word from my vocabulary! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to respond to this and to the message at my talk page at the same time in this thread. Just looking at edit summaries alone from the last few days, these are the ones that make false accusations against other editors of, or falsely imply that other editors are, maliciously hiding information:

• Special:Diff/1342983202: why are we deleting out accusers Jane Doe and eldest sibling Frank Cascio (who has been in the media for 20 plus years as a Jackson associate) but leaving in a bunch of nonsense about HBO's nondisparagment clause from an old concert film? Smacks of burying the info. Re-added Frank.
• Special:Diff/1342983824: Removing the paragraph on HBO litigation over a 6 year old documentary based on an old concert film clause. Nothing to do with allegations. Hides the ball (obviously). Is covered in multiple paragraphs on the Leaving Neveland documentarypage
• Special:Diff/1343002880: can someone PLEASE explain why this section is full of statements from people who say they were NOT molested but someone keeps deleting this actual legal accusation by the firm behind the Safechuck suit. That makes no sense. If you can have Feldman Culkin Barnes you can have the accusers in a section covering accusations
• Special:Diff/1343005678: way too outdated lawsuit info. The case is over 10 yrs old. Also it is an absolute joke to have this posthumous sex abuse allegations in an entry on this page nowhere visually near the other sex abuse allegations in his lifetime. Smacks of hidiing the ball from readers trying for an overview. But that is a fight for a different day.
• Special:Diff/1343034458: Adding "now." Funny how you impartial editors had Frank Cascio's abuse DENIAL statements and testimony and book all over this page and the trial page in 2023 per the archive. Now the joint is scrubbed clean of him at every turn. He was newsworthy when he said Jackson never touched him. Now he is memory holed. I re-added him below.

This accompanies the continued pattern of editing Wikipedia to right great wrongs. If you're looking for advice, my rule of thumb is that if you hold emotional beliefs about a subject, it is a bad idea to edit heavily in that topic area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ok fine fair. I do actually believe that, not gonna lie. And if people who edit because "the wrongs must end!" should not be editing, then it is what it is. I hear you. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Feeling strongly about a subject is nothing to be ashamed of, it's part of being a normal human being.

It takes a skilled, self-aware human being to learn and understand when that passion is so strong that it has the potential to impact our judgement on opposing viewpoints.

It takes a bloody amazing human being to be able to judge when this is happening and also have the self-control to step away and let others take over the reins.

Treat this situation as a rung on the ladder to becoming a bloody amazing human being. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Appreciate it Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed My God! There are DOZENS of them!! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

wait. I'm the drunk driver right? And this means you all think I'm wrong about these pages being "wildly inebriated" neutrality-wise? In that case ... .... I'm getting banned aren't I. Sigh. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

People generally don't get fully banned from Wikipedia just for conduct in one topic area unless it's truly egregious. Usually it ends with any restrictions being limited to that one subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion about Michael Jackson and sexual abuse allegations. Didn't pay attention at the time, have never been curious since. I am just noting that it seems like a lot of people are disagreeing with you. That does not automatically mean that they are right. I wrote an essay just for people in your situation: You can read it at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

this essay rules. Thank you. It captures exactly what (in part) goes on in terms of collective action from a contingent. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2; it's normal to be passionate about a topic. It's actually one of my favorite things about people, and what makes Wikipedia really great. What isn't normal on Wikipedia is getting to the point where everyone you disagree with is now seen as a "superfan" or "single-source/issue editor". Even if you are right (I wouldn't know, I started paying attention to society after any related scandal), being right isn't enough, and "winning" your arguments or disputes isn't the point of Wikipedia; it's to find consensus and to build a really great encyclopedia. If you can't edit about Michael Jackson in a manner that is collegiate and civil with editors, even ones you really disagree with, then you shouldn't edit there, period. I would rather the community not have to enforce that through a topic ban. You've acknowledged that you went too far, so the next step is to course correct your behavior going forward. My advice to you would be to stop making accusations about people's motives, tone down the snark, and to take a step back for a day or two to try editing something else. It really is fun to hit "random article" and correct typos or fix some grammar as a palette cleanser, or picking a backlog to try your hand at. When you're ready to come back to the topic with fresh eyes, focus on the content like ToBeFree said. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks. Yeah. It really is what it is. Even if there is a long-standing community of Michael Jackson enthusiasts reverting every single edit, that definitely isn't every editor here as was pointed out above, and I can't change that by hollering about it. I need to just not edit the pages, at least for awhile. I mean it is frustrating. 13 former child companions have accused the dude as of 2026 and the fact those allegations were made (not saying they are true, saying they were made) is functionally scrubbed. But snark is just not a solution. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I still have remaining concerns regarding the continued editing pattern of this editor. The editor appears to be consistently focused on expanding coverage related to the sexual abuse allegations involving Michael Jackson, raising significant questions about neutrality and due weight.

As I noted above, the user participates in an external forum where discussion is explicitly limited to the viewpoint that Jackson is guilty. While off-wiki activity alone is not determinative, this context may help explain the single-purpose nature of their contributions here. Despite repeated advice, suggestions, and concerns raised by multiple editors, including administrators, the editor has continued this pattern. Most recently, they initiated a new thread proposing the creation of a dedicated navbox exclusively for these allegations, and have been notifying multiple related talk pages to advance this proposal. A draft version has already been created in their sandbox. As I see it, this is both redundant, given the existing Template:Michael Jackson, and risks giving undue prominence to a single aspect of the subject. Such a standalone navbox focused solely on allegations appears inconsistent with common practice here on Wikipedia, even in cases involving individuals such as Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein, where convictions were actually handed out.

This conduct suggests that Wikipedia may be being used as a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Given the persistence of this behavior despite prior advice, I believe a topic ban related to editing content about Michael Jackson and associated allegations should be seriously considered to prevent further disruption and to ensure compliance.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

They're still trying to engage in WP:ADVOCACY on this issue? Yes, it seems a topic ban is the only way this will stop. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit disappointed to see that, since agreeing to stay away from the subject and acknowledging that it's not a good idea to edit subjects where you have a strong bias , they've only edited topics that directly relate to the allegations against Michael Jackson.

I'm wondering if a TBAN would be in their best interests, since they've not been able to stay away from the topic on their own & have essentially become an SPA.

On the plus side, they've not persisted in the original assuming of bad faith and have stayed polite from what I can see.

Can someone please confirm whether TBAN's be proposed/supported here, or must they go to ANI? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:CBAN, topic bans can be proposed and discussed at both AN and ANI. In addition, Michael Jackson is a contentious topic area so AE is also an option, and I'm pretty sure an uninvolved admin can issue an "on the stop" topic ban as well. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I would support a TBAN, I might wait a few hours to see if an admin wants to place it themselves or would prefer community discussion first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

wait a minute! I haven't edited ANY mj pages since I promised not to! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I PROPOSED a edit on the talk page! And did an RfC as I was told to in the essay about that was linked on the drunk driving metaphor. I have not done one singls solitary edit to an MJ related page since we spoke. This is an effort to shut down discussion. I voluntarily promised to not edit the MJ pages and stuck to it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone can find one single solitary edit I have made to one single solitary jackson page, it would lile to see it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

and my nav box talk page proposal was simply an effort to reach consensus on the deletion of the Safechuck page. I was saying "hey go ahead and delete it but maybe we should have some way folks can navigate this topic?" Absolutely no engagement - rather, the editor came here ... Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Not the article pages themselves, but you've been very active on Michael Jackson article Talk pages to discuss editing the articles, including the Michael Jackson page itself, the trial and FBI files.

This honestly goes against the spirit of agreeing to stay away, you've just moved onto the Talk pages instead.

You explicitly agreed to stay away from MJ pages, which logically includes the directly-associated article Talk pages. I don't think anyone here imagined that you intended to carry on using the Talk pages to propose edits to the articles - I certainly didn't.

You've even created an RFC , and a navbox to be included directly in the article, so how is this staying away from editing any Michael Jackson-related pages? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

There was a link above to that very idea in an essay where the admin made the metaphor about drunk driving. If you think a topic has been captured by a group of editors, don't be rude to them. Instead, do RfCs. And my navbox proposal was in response to the deletion proposal for Safechuck. But im so confused as to why you wouldnt want my input on talk pages if it isnt changing the actual pages. The whole reason I stopped editing was because overly passionate editors (I am passionate about neutrality not MJ) should not be editing. But why dont you want me on talk pages? I dont want to write my ideas where they arent wanted so not arguing. Just wondering why? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

ps - I wont edit the talk pages either if that is what you all want. Im not here to argue. You guys are are the Wiki policy experts not me. But I do want it noted that absolutely none of my talk page edits were about anything other than navigation among existing pages. That is not ADVOCACY or SOAPBOX. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the concern is primarily because most of our posts were encouraging you to explore unrelated subjects & topics, but a week later you've exclusively focused on the same area that you've had problems with - allegations against Michael Jackson.

That's a very, very narrow topic compared to the millions of available Wikipedia articles, so it's a bit concerning to see that you're apparently uninterested in working on anything else right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

OK then I wont write talk commentary any more. I do want to say I take being a person of my word very seriously and if you want to expand the no-go zone to talk discussion then so be it. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be a really good idea - if you can work on other topics then that'll do a lot to assuage people's concerns, and also greatly reduce the risk of other editors bringing this back to admin boards.

Think of it like an unofficial voluntary topic ban from Michael Jackson-related subjects, at least for the moment? Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

ok it is a deal- thanks. I promise. Consider me self-banned from all things Jacksonian, both the live pages and discussion pages. The post talking about my writing in my sandbox and in the talk pages on that proposed navbox, to which I was NOT notified, did feel designed to provoke the admins into falsely thinking I betrayed their trust, and get me banned, which I think is very uncool, but I can only control my own self. I ain't writing any more where it ain't wanted and appreciated! Thank you for your patience. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

About a dozen editors have commented with concerns about Thryduulf's conduct across two LLM-related conversations

1. Bludgeoning the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Replace NEWLLM, as described here . Thryduulf argued that he had not bludgeoned the process after having replied to 11 distinct support !votes and only 2 oppose !votes (both Thryduulf and I !voted to oppose, btw). Concerns expressed by other editors:
2. Whatever happened at WP:AINB § Herbert A. Parkyn AI enhanced image, best described by Anachronist . Several of Thryduulf's edits in this thread were disruptive, but this which baselessly implied the rationale for a block was probably the most concerning. Concerns expressed by other editors:

Attempt to resolve constructively: Seeing a pattern of behavior that had already deterred editors from participation , I decided to address it instead of waiting for it to potentially happen again. At User Talk:Thryduulf § Approach to LLM-related discussions I asked Thryduulf to acknowledge the error at the AINB thread to rebuild some trust with editors who are active there. This conversation unfortunately did not go as I hoped, which led to concerns about general accountability.

Pattern continues: Similar conduct - assuming bad faith, groundless accusations of wikilawyering, tortured readings of LLM-related policy, general stonewalling of anyone trying to do anything about LLM content issues - is happening again at WP:AINB § Hammer retarder and use of AI generated image, regarding an AI-generated image that a user subsequently identified as a possible derivative work of a copyrighted image. Before this latest AINB thread, I thought that a few admins having a word with Thryduulf would be sufficient. But now, I think that a topic ban from LLM-related conversations in project space would be most effective, although I am open to other suggestions. NicheSports (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Thryduulf on AI issues, but I can't see that they have done anything wrong there. They have simply disagreed with some other editors and said so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see anything here that would be resolved by the proposed TBAN. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not attempting to stonewall anything. I simply strongly believe that existing LLM policies and guidelines should be interpreted as actually written, and that any new ones are workable, proportionate, have as few side effects as possible and reflect the reality that issues with LLMs are not black and white. I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith, but now we're here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably because you keep responding to every argument against your opinion and reiterating your viewpoint? Not saying that is inherently bad, but this is probably why they don't think you are arguing constructively. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out? Is it fine for people who hold one viewpoint to repeatedly reiterate their opinion but not for people who hold a different opinion to do the same? Is it fine for those who support a (near) total ban on LLM use to respond to each different argument made in opposition to that view but not for those who oppose such a ban to respond to each different argument made in support? Only if the answer to all three is "yes" would that justify the labelling and accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that it's more than possible to rebut arguments without bludgeoning the process. Also, this comment is remarkably hostile. I can't dream of making such a statement, draw concerns from multiple editors regarding said statement and previous discussions, and remain intact on this project. It may be that a TBAN is unhelpful or ineffective. But I can't help but think of WP:SUPERMARIO. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think my status as an admin has any relevance to anything here? I don't recall acting in an administrative capacity in any of the relevant discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No comment regarding the actual concerns, I note. Anyways, WP:ADMINCOND states Administrators should lead by example and, just like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others at all times (my bold). Just because you did not use the admin toolset in these discussions does not mean that you are exempt. Also, it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block coming from a person with the capability to mete out that block is inherently chilling. This isn't a mere observation. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I think your status as an admin has relevance. At a conceptual level I write about why that is at User:Barkeep49/Elite, which I wrote after becoming an admin but before I got even more permissions. On a policy level WP:ADMINCOND does say at all times. I think there enough context within the diff itself (let alone the broader discussion which I've read) that it's amazing you've not been the subject of a CIR block isn't a veiled threat. However, I do think that entire comment is reflective of an editor at a wit's end, which hey most of us have been there, but does so in a way that falsely sets up a binary of either incompetence or bad motives. And that doesn't reflect well on you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf do still think you being an admin is of no relevance? You have no responded so it is unclear if you accept that or refute it. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it then fine for clearly incorrect statements of policy/guideline to be made but not to point them out? Surely if it is so clear then actually it is not necessary to point it out? And surely if it actually is necessary then someone other than you will do it? ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• I find Thryduulf's efforts to thwart restriction on LLM use to be immensely frustrating, and I believe their position is one that would do immeasurable harm to the project if it became the standard. But expressing such an opinion is not a sanctionable offense on its own. Right now, the ideal solution is to have everyone read WP:PEPPER, because there is definitely some bludgeoning going on. And then maybe codify our strict expectations around LLMs into policy so the letter of the policy aligns with the spirit of the policy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• I share the concerns about bludgeoning and hostility in these discussions, and I don't think it's limited to the LLM context. I'm reminded of recall discussions like Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr, where Thryduulf made fifty-five comments (apparently on the view that he wasn't bludgeoning because others hadn't adequately answered his questions) and used a tone that culminated in Would you now like to answer the question, let [another user] answer the question I asked, make more irrelevant comments without answering the question, or just shut up? I don't think we're at the point where sanctions would be helpful, but I really hope Thryduulf will (in the spirit of WP:ADMINCOND, which applies even when the admin hat is off) listen to the feedback he's been given and try to work on disagreeing without being disagreeable. Obviously this can be a tough area to strike the right balance in, but when people keep expressing their concerns and the response is I'm not sure why pretty much every comment I make continues to attract accusations of bludgeoning and bad faith, that's when I start to get worried that the feedback isn't getting through. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Extraordinary Writ If I was making tens of comments of the same nature in the same discussion then I could understand the accusation. The most recent accusations have come after I've made literally one or two comments on a topic and are have no mention or implication of the faith of anybody (unless it is inherently bad faith to disagree that the only possible solution to issues related to LLMs is to ban them (almost) entirely with (almost) no thought to any possible consequences, interactions with other policies/guidelines and/or how such a ban might be enforced). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf, other editors aren't coming to each new discussion on AI as a blank slate any more than you are. They're remembering all the previous ones as well. Editors' tolerance for bludgeoning doesn't go up the more they're exposed to it, but down. The effect is that you end up with fewer and fewer comments to work with in each discussion before editors start to feel bludgeoned. With AI, you may now be at WP:COAL as the limit. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Not a new thing. I'm put in mind of WT:Speedy deletion/Archive 87#Post RfC discussion (context in the immediately preceding RFC section, and context for that in the first section of that archive). —Cryptic 20:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• I want to see this project continue to have nuanced and well-thought-out discussions about AI, but frankly when I see Thryduulf's name appear in any of these discussions I tend to disengage because I know it's likely to devolve into bludgeoning, accusations of bludgeoning, and denials of bludgeoning. The "CIR block" comment directed at Gnomingstuff is particularly outrageous – even if he didn't mean it as a threat, an admin saying something like that can have a chilling effect. I don't know if any sanctions are appropriate but wanted to note that behaviour like this can be a barrier to constructive discussion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 21:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Was pinged here. (Which to be clear I don't have a problem with in this case, the thread is referencing a comment made toward me.) I respect that their stance on AI is logically consistent with their stance on similar issues in the past (e.g. opposing the mass deletion of unreferenced articles on similar "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" grounds, apologies if this is a mischaracterization). Genuinely, I do. Obviously we don't agree on some AI issues (although we probably disagree less than they think we do). The difference is that I'm not out here saying that it's surprising they haven't been banned for incompetence. Whether or not they intended it that way, comments like this come across as "shut the fuck up." A recurring theme in AI discussions is how editors increasingly feel worn down, are losing goodwill, etc. That doesn't happen on its own. It is a direct result of comments like these. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• I don't think this is an issue specific to the topic of generative AI, as observed by Cryptic. I am reminded of Thryduulf's behavior here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Redirect#Otherwise-implausible_redirects_originally_intended_as_editor_assistance_(i.e._possessive_redirects). I mentioned to Thryduulf that his participation in the discussion was starting to be counterproductive, and then I explicitly stated he was approaching something similar to bludgeoning after he continued.

There is also something to be said about a chilling effect when an admin, specifically, is exhibiting this sort of behavior. Something like the CIR block comment will be interpreted differently coming from someone who actually has the ability to block users, and being mindful of that is absolutely something we should expect from an admin.

All of that being said, I find Thryduulf to be a very collaborative editor with useful input almost everywhere else I've seen him on this project. I'm very glad we're having this conversation about Thryduulf's more troublesome behavior, and I hope he takes the advice to heart.

The strongest sanction that I would support is a formal warning against bludgeoning. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:18, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• This needs to be a broader discussion because to whatever extent Thryduulf's conduct is problematic, Thryduulf isn't the only offender. Arguably he's not the main offender. On LLMs there are quite a few whose passion becomes long-winded on occasion. I do hope that Thryduulf is one of those who considers editing their comments to remove duplication of points.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 207 § LLM/AI generated proposals?, the close began with the following:

  Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith are behavioral requirements for these discussions. When determining consensus, I disregarded the comments of Thryduulf, who clearly breached these requirements with comments like "If you don't want to be accused of making rabid assertions, don't make them." and "Your comment makes it clear that you have either not actually understood or are not listening to anything that contradicts your opinion."

  On the non-AI side, Thryduulf has also bizarrely argued that linking to a deprecated source is required by WP:V, which is a concerning interpretation of a core content policy. Combined with Cryptic's comments, I admit I am concerned by the pattern of not following consensus because they dislike it. ADMINCOND applies when the admin hat is off. I don't want you to be recalled. I don't want you to go to ArbCom. I don't want a forced apology. I do want Thryduulf to at least acknowledge that people find this behavior to be a problem and commit to doing better in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Last week, Kurzon was indeffed for "long-term edit warring issues, battleground editing, and personal attacks". This was noticed by Ahri Boy (talk · contribs), who started to engage on Kurzon's talk page in a way that I think was intended to get them to accept the block and take the standard offer, but ended up prolonging the discussion unnecessarily; at one point, Ahri Boy told them to appeal on UTRS despite there being no reason the request couldn't be public. I'm bringing this here because this isn't the first time Ahri Boy has engaged in a user-conduct discussion in good faith but ultimately unhelpfully, mostly at AN and ANI.

• Ahri Boy's first comments in discussions often show that they've missed some fundamental details about the thread:
  • Ahri Boy has a tendency to leap right to supporting harsh sanctions without reading the evidence, including cases where the diffs don't hold up (Nov. 2024), don't relate to this project (Dec. 2025), or haven't even been supplied (Apr. 2025).
  • Jul. 2025: Ahri Boy tried to get an AN filer to back off of their claims by saying the reported edits were verified by reliable sources, which – as CoffeeCrumbs pointed out – would have been impossible to conclude from looking at the first diff, which inserted a near-pure statement of opinion on Zionism into mainspace.
  • Dec. 2024: In one thread about a group of editors' poor copyediting, Ahri Boy chimed in to ask if that group had been warned repeatedly; reading the title of the thread would have shown that it was a follow-up to another thread on the same page, where they were, in fact, warned repeatedly.
  • Aug. 2024: In a thread asking for someone to be blocked as an impersonator of a retired user, Ahri Boy responded to say that the retired user was retired, which had already been said.
  • Ahri Boy was warned (Nov. 2024) by Phil Bridger and blocked on metawiki (Feb. 2025) for this exact behavior.
• Ahri Boy's advice to sanctioned users ranges from "not quite on point" to "actively harmful if followed", including heavy emphasis on the standard offer even when it it's questionable (as seen with Kurzon):
  • Jul. 2025: When a user posted appallingly racist rhetoric, Ahri told them to come back in six months. Ahri then told them to not come back ... when Ahri found out they were mentally ill, which isn't blockable.
  • Dec. 2025: When Ahri Boy reported a user for repeated declined unblock requests on sock accounts, their solution was again the standard offer. (asilvering reminded them that unblock requests don't need to be forwarded to ANI automatically.)
  • Oct. 2024: When another editor said that they'd been blocked on a very old prior acct and wanted to appeal, Ahri Boy told them to just keep editing; another editor reminded Ahri that this would be socking.
  • Liz and Star Mississippi both warned Ahri Boy (Dec. 2025 – Jan. 2026) for their engagement with unblock requests and oversharing, which they have also had a history of. (More examples of questionable engagement with unblocks can be found through that link.)
• Even aside from those, Ahri Boy makes poor calls pretty frequently in projectspace:
  • Dec. 2025: Ahri Boy implied that we should be looser on one subject's BLP protections because "her LA home has a lot of safeguards".
  • Oct. 2025: Ahri Boy filed an MfD on that Larry Sanger essay just hours after the first one was closed with consensus to keep.
  • Dec. 2024: In response to the question "how much of a Nazi does one need to be before WP:NONAZIS applies?", Ahri Boy replied "enough to be indeffed", which feels pretty tautological.

I hope it's clear that these aren't mild, isolated incidents, and that I'm not dropping this on someone out of nowhere. As much as Ahri Boy is clearly here in good faith and that should be recognize, they've also been warned by several admins on two projects for several pretty appalling instances of engaging without understanding the issues at play or how to resolve them. I haven't even gotten into their frequent CS1 errors, their questionable redirects (1 2 3), or their record with images (4 5 6 7 8 9). They do seem to do pretty okay at AIV and mainspace as mentioned above, so maybe there's some narrowing that can be done, but the projectspace participation has been like this for a while and the warnings don't seem to have worked. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In some cases, I'd consider taking a full break after a months of translation, and cleanup. As for alt text revisions, it was useful for those who have visual impairments reading on mobile. I made some mistakes before and I distanced from them slowly. If I would decide to return from a break, I could continue making articles as long as the areas I am working on aren't contentious enough.

P.S.: Taking these as a lesson not to cross boundaries too much. I could have been bold and not to be incompetent when dealing with issues I am not directly involved.

As someone who has autism-spectrum disorder, it's not really easy to apologize for what I've made before, and such mistakes may accidentally happen again at anytime. I would best be careful when finding a solution to disputes. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have encountered Ahri Boy once before at ToadetteEdit's talk page, and found their response there to be tautological and also somewhat bizarre, since an admin had already told Toadette to wait a significant amount of time to appeal their CBAN. While I haven't done an in-depth look at all of the diffs yet, I do have concerns about Ahri Boy's contributions to areas related to user conduct, and warnings generally seem to be insufficient at discouraging this behavior. In retrospect, I probably should have asked Ahri Boy to remove their own comment and come to their talk page regarding my concerns. They are clearly here in good faith, but I still find problems with their editing that haven't been adequately resolved. Fathoms Below (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I should also have not written the advice at that time. But you made the call by removing it in good faith. The two diffs at Wikipedia:Help desk were made when I am stressed out that time. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

At times I think they're a young editor who is in over their head when it comes to project space. At others I think they're badly trolling. It would probably be easiest for all involved if @Ahri Boy stays out of project space and admin adjacent areas and just focused on content, but I'm not sure they're willing to do so. Star Mississippi 01:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ahri Boy I think you inadvertently prolonged/exacerbated the situation on Kurzon's Talk page - comments like this one were rather antagonistic & weren't really helpful to an editor who was upset over being blocked and losing access to an account they had for two decades. Asking a direct question then telling them to stop editing in the very next sentence wasn't helpful and almost guaranteed to cause some sort of emotional response.

Blocks are especially tricky, since you're dealing with someone who's already broken P&G's and often isn't in a positive frame of mind; they're already in a bad situation, so if you say or do the wrong thing then you could accidentally make things a lot worse for them.

I know it's often much harder to understand social cues when you're neurodivergent - on Wikipedia it's even more difficult because you've only got written text to go off. We're already at a bit of a disadvantage, so it's really important to understand where our weaknesses and limits are.

Would you agree to stick to basic article editing and refrain from projects/admin areas like Star suggested, at least until you get more experience? Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I spent a month on translating articles from vi.wp, and stopped short for a while. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Came across this discussion from somewhere unrelated. @Blue Sonnet came to mind as somebody who contributes to unblock requests in an extremely professional and respectful manner. @Ahri Boy, some of your comments, like the one on @TE's talk page about a "jianghu", are definitely not helpful. Probably best to stick to article space for the time being, rather than administrative areas of the project. Maybe take a look through @Blue Sonnet's edit history to get a feel of what advice is appropriate to give in specific scenarios. Best of luck to you either way! 11WB (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Came across this discussion while searching for an unrelated past discussion I was involved in. @Ahri Boy, your edits are clearly in good faith, some evidence of which can be seen at , but I still think that based on the above it may be best for you to refrain from participating in administrative areas for the time being. Of course, if you have any questions you can always ask an admin on their talk page. That'll be all from me in this discussion. Best of luck to you! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As someone on the Spectrum, I feel like if your disorder makes you incapable of not disrupting Wikipedia, then perhaps you should find some other hobby or curtail your activities on Wikipedia to those you can undertake without disrupting Wikipedia. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree wit @Theleekycauldron: concerning curtailment. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've seen Ahri Boy around a bit, and noticed that he does many "me too" edits, that he then does not explain. This was the basis of the question I asked him which was noted by the OP. Ahri Boy, if you can't contribute some original thought to a discussion then it's best to stay silent. I know I'm not the world's best role model, but I read many more discussions than I contribute to. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC) P.S. You are far from alone in having autism-spectrum disorder. I sometimes think that I'm the only neurotypical one here!

"(DITTO: Use it! The mental process involved is exactly analogous to the bandwidth-saving technique employed for your phone. If you’ve seen the scene you’ve seen the scene, and there’s too much new information for you to waste time looking it over more than once. Use “ditto”. Use it!—The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan)" -- Stand on Zanzibar. John Brunner. -- the former admin Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Ahri Boy has now ended his break from projectspace and chimed in at an ANI thread to say the tendencies think [the user] is uncollaborative and tendentious. And by the way, I have no additional information to resolve the recurring dispute. None of his engagement here gives me any confidence that the issues have actually been addressed, so I think the absolute minimum is going to be a block from projectspace, and since many of theleekycauldron's diffs are from other namespaces I'm not really sure that's going to be sufficient. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate site-banning editors who are very obviously trying to help. But it looks like that's where we're at. I'd still really prefer we try the projectspace block first. -- asilvering (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Please try the project block first, I don't want to lose them unless we have no choice. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Well now wait a minute. It looks like they were asked to comment at that thread. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't notice that. Apologies to Ahri Boy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hang on – I understand that that does change things somewhat, but if Ahri Boy only complies with the voluntary break from projectspace until someone asks them to break it, it's not very effective at all. And you were still right to say that Ahri Boy's participation there was another example of coming to a conclusion before reading the facts. At the very least, I think the break from projectspace has to be made technically enforceable (self-imposed topic bans are already enforceable as a matter of policy, although there's sometimes a reluctance). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this will be part of Tech News but since it'll go live before the tech news for the change is published, here is a heads up. We made two tiny changes on the interface of Special:Block (phab:T401823) that will go live on Thursday this week. 1- Now indefinite as a duration have a dedicated radio button so you don't need to find it on the preset duration drop down 2- If an indef duration has been picked, a new set of common block reasons will be shown. You can modify that in MediaWiki:Ipbreason-indef-dropdown (as opposed to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown). That way you can have basically two set of common block reasons: One for indef blocks and one for non-indef ones which would reduce the size of that massive drop down. Hope that'd be useful for you. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will existing reasons from MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown also be available in the new dropdown for some time, or only the ones we configure at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-indef-dropdown? If the latter, I might try to get it ready before Thursday. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I don't think any of the applicable reasons at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown could not also apply to an indefinite block in case of repeated abuse. If anything, I believe the main benefit would be pruning the "default" list from things like username blocks or LTA blocks, while the indef list will stay the full size. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think something that is a common reason for non-indef block could be an uncommon reason for indef ones. The text field will stay there and admins could always use that for indef blocks of repeated violations but I think for example [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]] could be removed from indef ones since [[WP:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]] exists there (and if an admin wants to ban someone fully for "Vandalism", they can use the text field). That being said, I'm not an admin and this is your wiki's decision of how to approach it. Ladsgroup^overleg 12:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That is actually a very good point, thanks a lot! I approached it with the mindset of "which ones would be plausible reasons for a block", but the fact that some of them might be too uncommon absolutely has to be taken into consideration. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Since there's going to be some disruption to the dropdown anyway, this seems like a good time to ask for a few more eyes at MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown. I hadn't planned on doing any reordering myself - I've got a Greasemonkey script to fill in the block reasons I tend to use most - but I can't be the only admin to have been irritated by having to look 3/4 of the way down the list for some of the most commonly-used reasons. —Cryptic 16:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, and alpha order by key word (disruption, spam, ...) would be helpful. That would put vandalism at the bottom, groan. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:CR could use a little love. I did my part and closed one, but there's a lot to go around. Nemov (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding User:Pbsouthwood has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in December of 2025 to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Pbsouthwood requested it within three months. Because Pbsouthwood has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood#Pbsouthwood: Motion to suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Pbsouthwood closed

There is a great deal of literature cited to Arno Tausch on Wikipedia. Most seem to have been added by IPs and socks of User:Thomas Bernhard 1945, particularly under the account of Special:Contributions/Austrian political observer. I also noticed that an account called Special:Contributions/John de Norrona has had a propensity to cite Tausch disproportionaltely, which I will flag for SPI.

This is a fairly clear case of WP:SELFPROMOTION, and help cleaning this stuff up would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging @Randykitty, PhilKnight, Cordless Larry, S0091, Russ Woodroofe, Nomoskedasticity, Xxanthippe, and Liz: as people who've had interests/run-ins with those Tausch-related socks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• There is exactly 69 articles that need cleaning up, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Tausch%22+insource%3A%22Arno%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 MolecularPilot _Talk 07:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, I thought I linked the search, but I guess I had it opened on a seperate window. It was 71 earlier, but I/someone else probably cleaned a few already. Note that it's possible some of those are good citations. But most were added by promotional accounts as far as I can tell. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I had a look at his Google Scholar profile and while his publications are reasonably well cited and some of them are in seemingly reputable journals, he also appears to publish with more questionable publishers such as Nova Science Publishers, which would lead me to be cautious about whether some of his works can be considered as RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, and I remember now that one of the socks was arguing that Nova shouldn't be considered a vanity press. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Could admin or check user eyes take a look at Alkagesta? Apparently multiple new editors restoring each other edits and parroting each other concerns with AI talk page posts, appears to be have been going on since February. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that Talk page is like watching the Dead Internet theory come into existence in real time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Now spilling out onto RSN, whoever is behind the accounts is right about the source but meat/socking AI posts is not the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fidashnamazova _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I made the same mistake just now, there's already one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevin Hamburg. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The involved editors appear to only care about editing the article in question and its talk page. Strangely none of them have deigned to comment on its current deletion discussion. -- Reconrabbit 16:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I collapsed all the very obviously AI-generated comments with {{cait}}, but one of the editors reverted me. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that. It was a shock seeing gray banners all over the talk page. The proposed state of the article is filled with blatant PR, so regardless of what happens I can see it getting trimmed down in the near future. -- Reconrabbit 16:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It has been up and not closed for three months and counting... seems like it should be closed soon. Rhinocratt
c 16:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It's even been on WP:CR for over a month without closure. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

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

There needs to be serious administrative intervention on that page. A flawed and inconclusive RfC about the nationality of the business ended up mixing topics together and ultimately a handful of users chose, when the discussion was meant to be about something else, to remove a section regarding the company’s controversies. I was even blocked due to my non-complying attitude in relation to that mess. Now a user has changed the lead into something openly partial and contradictory (immediately claiming that the company is multinational, not corroborated by sources, and only then adding that it is Israeli, as per countless sources), and I can’t do anything to undo their disruption. Please, I’m begging for someone serious to step in. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Argan oil is one of the more amusing instances of nationalism I've seen. Interesting that an associated company fell victim to unrelated nationalism. JayCubby 21:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Moroccan nationalism is not unrelated when you call yourself “Moroccan” but you don’t have any verifiably close association with Morocco other than the ancestry of those who sold off their small business almost two decades ago. That is not the point I was raising here though. I’m literally begging you, the article is being torn apart. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

To be simple about this, you have an AE case resulting from your behaviour on that page that resulted in a block from February and have now received a year long page block related to your continued conduct at the page where you show no understanding of why you were blocked.

I would kindly suggest it may be beneficial that you remove the page from your watchlist and refrain from any discussion involving it as it appears you are unable to maintain a civil and calm approach to it, and if anything you are simply likely to receive further sanctions for failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

That is the reason why I’m trying to involve other users and admins so they can deal with it instead. But everyone is focusing on anything other than the points I’m raising. Please. I’m serious. If you want me to drop the stick, someone needs to pick it up and clean up this messy situation. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that would be inappropriate. You seem to be predicating your "dropping" of the issue on others making edits you desire at a page your conduct has caused to be blocked from.

I'm going to tag @The Bushranger, as they seem to be more aware of the context of the issue so they can assess if this post is a problem in itself as to me it appears to break the spirit of WP:CANVASSING. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing? I’m openly calling for neutral intervention on the administators’ noticeboard. I’m not trying to “recruit” users one by one just to tell me I’m right. The point I’m raising here has nothing to do with my behavior, which I acknowledge nonetheless. It has to do with dealing with a process that was messy from the beginning. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You openly claimed someone who has made edits you don't like is engaging in "disruption". That's not neutral, and the fact you've come here saying others need to undo it is absolutely not neutral either.

Again, I would suggest you take a breath and leave the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• It's not canvassing, per se; it's a request for proxy editing. I was going to give a chance to retract to the OP but then I re-read and saw "I'll only drop the stick if this thing I demand is done", which - no. IvanScrooge98 has been WP:BOOMERANGed for 48 hours for attempting to evade their pblock via proxying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think you've referenced the block incorrectly on their page Bushranger. It's AN, not ANI. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, so it is - thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has received an application for oversight permissions from Kj cheetham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and has reviewed it in consultation with the functionaries team. The committee invites the community to evaluate the candidacy and comment on the talk page of this noticeboard until 23:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § OS rolling appointment application – March 2026

• Faster than Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, this message is to notify that Faster than Thunder has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Faster than Thunder. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This user has spent most of her time vandalising pages that has to do with ethnicities outside yoruba, to the exxtent that they wanted to claim Akwete, which is well recorded in Hugh Crow's Memooir, and other anthropologists that worked in the Southern Nigeria like Percy Amaury Talbot. Please review the account and see that they are mostly repoorting and vandalising pages that belongs to Igbo ethnicity.

She vandalised the page created for the traditional clothes of Western Igbo people, and also reported it, despite having so much accurate references that are easily verifiable. This user @Dolpina has not been able to counter any of their write ups and edits on pages belonging to the Igbo ethnicity. Not even able to provide proper sources in her edits. This should be looked into very well, as to avoid biases on Wikipedia. Idenze (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

How rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk?markasread=345863913&markasreadwiki=enwiki

You reported me with fictitious claims after I clled out your vandalism here. Dolpina (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I reported you correctly. Your edits in the pasts has shown that you are very ethnocentric, and bias in your edits. For example, you have done lots of edits on Akwete in the pasts trying to credit. it to the Yoruba, and when solid documents were uploaded, you resorted to claiming that the Ijaw version, which was well credited to Ndoki women came from Yoruba land. That is you being biased and ethnocentric.

Your past edits has shown repeatedly that you are biased and ethnocentric, because for exxample, you tampered with Akwa Ocha, without any solid proof of the page faulting Wikipedia's policy. Idenze (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)