Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Per this discussion on the Three Alls policy article, I determined @User:Wahreit appears to have added content to the article not supported by the source they cited. I am extremely concerned Wahreit is attempting to build a false historical consensus by writing whatever they wish and citing non-English sources that readers and contributors are unlikely to verify (i.e fictious reference). I have tried to avoid Wahreit and articles they contribute to as I have had many issues with them in the past, but as their false information was pertinent to the discussion on a related article,[1] I ultimately went ahead and corrected it. After I made my correction, Wahreit immediately followed up with WP:Hounding, wasting no time in following me to the related article and acting belligerent.[2] In spite of working with others in the talkpage to reach a consensus and that my contributions to the article used reputable secondary sources, Wahreit began nitpicking over WP:Coatrack issues[3] and rather than work to correct the alleged issues, nor await the input of other contributors, has engaged in WP:Edit_Warring by completely reverting my contributions three times in a row now.[Diff1][Diff2[Diff3]

Around this time, the user also went and altered the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, which in the past I had heavily contributed to and had past issues with this same user on. Nearly two years ago, it was determined through extensive discussion and a laundry list of sources on the talk page that the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division was not a participating force, even though some Western sources claimed the contary.[4] Since this was determined nearly two years ago, no other editors have since taken issue with the participating Japanese forces listed. In spite of this, Wahreit has arbitrarily readded the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's participation, despite it already being explained to them years ago.[5] Even Stephen Robinson, who Wahreit relies on heavily as a source for this claim, has personally corresponded with me and agreed their inclusion of the 3rd Divison's involvement at Sihang Warehouse in their writing was incorrect. I am happy to send a copy of this correspondence to an administrator if necessary.

While good faith should be assumed, just a month ago Wahreit went through a very arduous effort of collecting all of my negative interactions with them to try and have me banned, although it was ultimately unsuccessful.[6] It would not be a stretch to say this user holds some kind of grudge against me and is engaged in deliberate harassment through their disruptive editing. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This is now the third time @Adachi1939 is trying to get me banned for content disputes (the first two being unsuccessful).

I joined that discussion because:

- adachi badmouthed me unprovoked

- adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus) and repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged" (which constitutes Denial). Editor @RelmC has taken issue with this too, but adachi has continued to revert their contributions without consensus

Rather than seek consensus per Bold-Revert-Discuss, adachi has reverted everyone's edits to the page repeatedly and now escalated to WP:ANI for the third time.

I now insist on a block for @Adachi1939 because:

- adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop

- adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me

- adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned without discussion, and edit warring

- adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks (despite prior warnings and blocks from admins)

It is getting tiresome coming back to this page over and over again to defend myself because adachi won't resolve content disagreements. adachi has never been of any interest, I only edit wikipedia for the readers. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission. Just some food for thought. Wahreit (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>adachi badmouthed me unprovoked

Referencing the Chinese version of Wikipedia article, Wahreit wrote a completely different statement in English while citing the same Chinese source, as already explained above.[1] This is not unprovoked "badmouthing", they have engaged in academic dishonesty and it was directly relevant to the discussion. The fact Wahreit has not only engaged in such academic dishonesty, but still refuses to acknowledge it nor take responsibility, should be more than enough reason to have their editing rights revoked.

>>adachi was pushing "an actual number of victims" for the Nanjing Massacre (lower than page consensus)

This is rather disingenuous. I wrote:

Modern scholarship on the Nanjing Massacre, such as Wakabayashi's The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-1938 estimates the actual number of victims to range from 100,000–200,000 POWs and civilians killed

The actual Nanjing Massacre article states "newer estimates adhere to a death toll between 100,000 and 200,000" citing the same source.[2]

>>repeatedly calling a documented genocide "so-called" and "alleged"

Again this is disingenuous, I have not denied a genocide. I called the term "Three Alls policy" "alleged" and "so-called" as it does not exist in Japanese documents, the very sources cited in the article on it state it was a term created by the Chinese Communist Party to criticize Japan's brutal annihilation/pacification operations.[3] I have never denied the Japanese military flagrantly committed atrocities during these campaigns, only questioned the terminology and who was actually responsible.

>>adachi has continued to revert their [RelmC's] contributions without consensus

RelmC expressed doubts with my contributions adhering to the academic consensus, largely due to confusion stemming from Wahreit writing a fictious claim on the Three Alls policy article as already mentioned above. After clarifying this,[4] I readded the changes and have not received further input from RelmC. I don't know why Wahreit thinks they are entitled to speak on behalf of this editor who has so far expressed no further concerns.

>>adachi explicitly hounding me (by offering opposition to me, not content, across different pages) despite prior warnings from admins to stop

While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false. Wahreit's cited example occurred on Jan 16 2026. I was warned on Jan 19 2026 to stop.[5] I have since stopped, however as seen above Wahreit has not.

>>adachi's repeated visits to my talk page to insult me

All of these are old examples which have already been discussed on the Administrator's noticeboard before and are missing the context that in said noticeboard discussions, they were found to be guilty of the same behavior. An administrator noted about Wahreit:

I am extremely unimpressed with your behavior. You seem to be arranging inappropriate offwiki coordination with another editor against "a certain guy". It's hardly harassment for that "guy" to then show up to the conversation.

Another user wrote of Wahreit:[6]

does @Wahreit think talk pages are exempt of WP:CIVIL? The only embarrassing behavior I see is from you [Wahreit].

>>adachi's repeated attempts to get me banned

Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior. Perhaps Wahreit is unaware that an alternative to being banned is simply not engaging in prolonged disruptive behavior.

>>adachi's continued reliance on personal attacks

As already discussed above, pointing out someone's poor conduct doesn't necessarily mean it's a personal attack. In the numerous examples Wahreit has cited, they have take responsibility for their misconduct in zero of them.

>>also, adachi seems to "gain satisfaction" from making people angry and upset, per his own admission

The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>>The full context here is that I was gaining satisfaction from the anger someone suffered as a consequence of their own stupidity. For that I am guilty as charged.

@Adachi1939 admits the truth on how he interacts with and treats newcomers. Just appalling.

>>>While the hounding is true, the allegation I was already warned to not do so is false

adachi admits to hounding me. And he was warned previously by an admin here to not to hound me: Then he was warned again recently He still has refused to stop.

>>>Nowhere in these examples did I explicitly ask for Wahreit to be banned. I was requesting admin intervention for measures to be taken against their disruptive behavior.

No. He did. Here:

So adachi has just admitted to hounding me and has not stopped despite two previous warnings. He has been blocked already for edit-warring twice too (see his block log). He gains satisfaction from "the anger from other people's stupidity" as he calls it.

I really do believe the wiki community would benefit from a long block on adachi. Wahreit (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

hey just popping in here. What happened?? It doesn't look like any of you are in the right judging by what I see, it's better if we get someone here now Raizief (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 has escalated to WP:ANI for the third time over a content issue, seeking to get me banned. He didn't try getting a consensus on a talk page or discuss substantially.

Adachi's also been hounding me across Wikipedia despite previous warnings from admins. I am bored of having to come here every time adachi disagrees with me. I'll let the diffs speak the truth. Wahreit (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

>>No. He did. Here:

My apologies if I missed them, but looking over these two examples I don't see any examples where I explicitly called for Wahreit to be banned.

At this point I am fairly certain they lack the ability to engage in a constructive manner with me but that doesn't necessarily mean they need a sitewide ban, just blocking their editing privileges on a few articles could probably help. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If you two want someone to assist a good first step would be to stop going back and forth with each other. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I support an interaction ban between these two editors. Both of them continually increase the temperature of discussions I have witnessed and seemingly have no ability to stop insulting each other or personalizing the dispute.

See throwing juvenile tantrums and begging desperately (and unsuccessfully) for the admins to ban me

and This is perhaps the most disingenuous statement I've ever witnessed from an editor on this site.

for recent examples. Katzrockso (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: These two have been edit warring at Defense of Sihang Warehouse for two years now. Wahreit canvassed me three times on my talk page for my input but I've ignored it until now with the exception of some deletions of unsourced content back in May 2024. Their main contention seems to be that Wahreit mainly uses secondary or tertiary sources that have a Chinese bias while Adachi favors primary Japanese sources that have a Japanese bias. It wasn't until today that I noticed that Adachi is deleting pieces of the article based on the false premise of failed verification, which they then reverted with an explanation to see talk page. There is obviously no consensus on the talk page since Wahreit and Adachi are still fighting each other, and I don't much any mention of the source involved (Harmsen), so I'm not sure what looking at talk page is supposed to do. I suggest a topic ban for both Wahreit and Adachi from WW2 articles, particularly Adachi for the Second Sino-Japanese War, since this has been ongoing for years now. Looking at Adachi's history, they have been edit warring with multiple users since 2023. Qiushufang (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Response: Sorry if my reasoning in the edits was not clear, all of these passages in some way did fail verification, please see my explanation on the talk page.

The issue with Wahreit is not that they use sources biased towards China, it is that they are using objectively bad sources, including ones that have either copied or outright plagiarized Wikipedia to assert completely false notions like an entire extra Japanese division being involved.

If it was just Wahreit's poor sources being the problem, it would not be so much of an issue. They have been distorting sources for years.

Ex. 1 Source says "The Chinese officers ordered their men to fire. Five Japanese soldiers went down" Wahreit writes "Five Japanese soldiers were killed instantly by gunfire"

Did these Japanese soldiers die? Likely, but it is not explicitly stated in the original text.

Ex. 2 Source says Japanese "brought forward tankettes", Wahreit changes it to "five Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, who Yang Ruifu observed advancing down the road." Cited source made no reference to the number of tankettes nor Yang Ruifu observing them (he's not mentioned in the source article at all).

Ex. 3 Source only lists one Japanese serviceman as fatally wounded near Sihang Warehouse, Wahreit adds false claim to article that it said "two" died.

If the issues with these poor sources and Wahreit adding false/misleading/embellished information unsupported by their sources could have been handled years ago when it started, none of this would have ever escalated to this mess. Yes I do edit the Sihang Warehouse article a lot because the article sucks and needs a lot of work, especially due to disruptive editors like Wahreit and people that keep reverting problematic content back into it. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Other people seem to disagree with your interpretation of bad sources or plagiarism per explanation by Katzrockso (talk · contribs). Qiushufang (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate all the input Katzrockso has given me, but their judgement is off on this one. Also that's only a single opinion.

Not even getting into the misinformation of this article, the signs of plagiarism are damning. This type of content has no place on the Web let alone Wikipedia. Just look at the comparisons:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

No web results other than the Wiki when searching "mint godown" before:2007-12-31:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"known also as the Chinese Mint Godown by those from the concessions"

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Westerners knew the place as the Chinese Mint Godown."

Strange small detail for both to include:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"the defenders did not have a flag pole in the warehouse. Therefore, the flag was hoisted on a makeshift pole made of two bamboo culms tied together."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Because there was no flagpole, two bamboo poles were lashed together for the purpose."

These two paragraphs are nearly identical in their content:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"Attacking from all directions with cannon fire and tankettes, they pushed the 3rd Company out of their defensive line at the base of the warehouse and forced the 3rd into the warehouse itself. The west side of the warehouse originally lacked windows (as can be seen from the photos above), but the Japanese attacks conveniently opened up firing holes for the defenders. A group of Japanese soldiers tried to scale the walls to the second floor with ladders, and Xie just happened to be at the window they appeared from. He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off.

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The west side of the building lacked windows, but Japanese shell hits had punched enough gaps into the wall to provide the defenders with loopholes. The Japanese, acting in concert with infantry, then brought forward tankettes. The fighting grew so heavy the Chinese Third Company was pushed back from its position and forced into the warehouse. Japanese infantry came forward with scaling ladders, a curious throwback in an age of mechanized war. The Chinese simply pushed the ladders off or peppered the advancing enemy with rifle and machine-gun fire. Xie personally lent a hand, fighting alongside his men.

If we break down the Wiki article's sentences it's essentially the following: [Concept 1 - Japanese attack with tankettes → push back Chinese 3rd Company] → [Concept 2 - West side attacked by Japanese → loopholes made for Chinese Defenders], → [Concept 3 - Japanese try to scale walls with ladders → Chinese resist → Xie personally stops them]

Looking at Niderost's paragraph, we can see the same content just paraphrased and rearranged, his is just constructed as [Concept 2] → [Concept 1] → [Concept 3].

Adachi1939 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I now support a topic ban for blatant WP:BLP violations despite previous warnings. Katzrockso (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Definition of plagariasm as per Chabot College where the author in question is a faculty member

The term "plagiarism" includes, but is not limited to, the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work or another person without full and clear acknowledgement

Plagiarism includes the deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's works and ideas, as one's own, as well as paraphrasing without footnoting the source.

Per both Wikipedia's definition and Chabot College's definition no violation of WP:BLP has occcured. On the contrary, attempting to surpress these very real issues with academic misconduct is saddening to see. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Look at Adachi's edit history at Yasuji Okamura where they repeatedly edit warred with RelmC (talk · contribs) and Wahreit (talk · contribs) over the course of three months. I also just noticed Katzrockso's involvement at the talk page there, so they should know the extent of the issue better than I do. A logged out edit just coincidentally reverted me after I warned Adachi of edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow this goes back even further than I thought. Note that even before Katz had advized Adachi to edit the Three Alls article, they had already done that back in December 2025, eventually involving Wahreit as well as RelmC. Qiushufang (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow I had forgotten that I was involved in this two years ago at Battle of Shanghai. See my comments on the issue here and here. I even predicted that none of the issues would be fixed because the users involved keep on using non-English primary sources that hardly anyone can verify. Defense of Sihang Warehouse has not improved to this day. The article is still ridden with primary sources, broken sources, and incomplete sources, all issues that had been templated for improvement. Adachi's most recent edit even broke a bunch of sources. Qiushufang (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work fixing the Defense of Sihang page after my edits. I am going to go through soon and fix as well as better organize all of the citations. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Hi admin(s). I am coming here with a very heavy heart, only after multiple failed attempts in seeking proper guidance over my concerns and what I have presented in defense.

I wrote an article on the subject, and nominated it for DYK. During the review process, disagreements occured between few users over WP:RSNOI and WP:ABOUTSELF. Another thread started here, but saw no outcome. I took queries to multiple other forums as well, , but still no response.

Finally, a forced DYKTIMEOUT was established and my queries and defense still remains unaswered. I re-opened another thread, and after three more days of no response, I am here.

(Update: stale and archived, I am now willing for a WP:PR. M. Billoo 14:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC))

What I understand the other respected editors' concerns were, that I have used unbylined press-release style references disguised as news publications, and that this is a contentious topic. And my point was, that I have tried to keep the article tone neutral only establish the fact that the album exists, and tried highlighting notability of the recreated songs and of few of the artists involved in credits. No one highlighted if there was any problem in the article. Only one comment was to try GAN, and only one was to run AfD.

I hope for a better outcome and that I can enjoy being on Wikipedia rather than being stuck. I understand that some sock editors have created a hard time for the reputable editors in Pakistan, and that some publications out here are of low quality. It definitely does not mean to strike everything out, so scrutiny is requested.

Please, thank you! M. Billoo 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI Admins can't help with content disputes (they usually deal with behavioural issues), can you clarify what outcome you are seeking from admins as I'm not sure from your post what you are asking them to do? Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I cannot call a specific outcome. But I am seeking an independent scrutiny whether the article meets notability and can qualify for DYK, or not, despite a forced DYKTIMEOUT. I may agree that this was only a content dispute, but all concerns were and are still yet to be addressed. M. Billoo 10:54, 11 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)

There's been a new series of disruptive edits on a single article from these accounts:

• ~2026-15312-44 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-15310-43 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-15512-16 (talk · contribs)

The style and network origin reminded me of these earlier ones:

• ~2026-13661-19 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-11866-11 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-12732-51 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-20527-4 (talk · contribs)
• ~2026-18873-1 (talk · contribs)

I don't know if someone can recognize an earlier sockpuppeteer to connect the dots? --Joy (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I checked the addresses, and found that I had previously blocked one of them in May last year, so this is a recurring issue :/

The overarching address space was pretty huge with IPv6, this is possibly the largest anonblock I've ever done. Please feel free to modify if it's too much. --Joy (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me just jot down for the record some of the disruptions caused by these:

• Talk:Dubrovnik Prayer Book#recent edit war - September '25
• Talk:Andrija Torkvat Brlić#edits about ethnicity etc - May '25
• 2024 up to March '25
• Talk:Josip Stadler#Role in "anti-Serb pogrom" - I'd say they were definitely at it in 2023, though probably also in 2022

--Joy (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

A few days later they're back with

• ~2026-16112-89 (talk · contribs)

I actually noticed an earlier iteration in

• ~2026-52860-9 (talk · contribs)

--Joy (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

There has a pretty long backlog at AIV for about an hour. Some accounts on there are currently active as of now and need blocks ASAP: I would really appreciate it if an admin would check through it. enbi [they/them] • [talk] 21:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Mfield (Oi!) 21:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lunarscarlet and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopian Epic, TA user User:~2026-12969-72 (whose only purpose on Wikipedia appears to be defending the two reported users at those SPIs) is claiming that there's apparently a "concerted effort by a group of conservative editors targeting editors on the 'other side'" just for voicing our concerns and suspicions about sockpuppetry. By our, I mean: me, Ganesha811, Astaire, ~2026-12618-57. Can an admin please tell that TA to knock it off with the personal attacks and aspersions casting? Thanks. Some1 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Echoing the call for an uninvolved admin to take a look here. The above diffs are a clear WP:WIAPA violation: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Astaire (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling me a "conservative" editor is quite funny considering I've been indirectly called an "opinionated Democrat" elsewhere on this project. Some1 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What's also interesting is that after ScholarlyTome / Ryuudou were blocked as sockpuppets , the TA in question started an SPI case against PharaohCrab, a user who's in dispute with those sockpuppets at Osiris. Also after the block, another TA ~2026-13060-07 popped up to continue the edit-war on that page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osiris&action=history

An admin might want to ECP or fully protect that Osiris page.

And it's not lost on me that 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals, Feeding Our Future, North Africa were all temporarily fully-protected at one point due to edit-warring by the users listed in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ethiopian Epic case. Some1 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Both of the TAs mentioned, ~2026-12969-72 and ~2026-13060-07, are blocked and the Osiris article is protected. Are we done here? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I see that Lectonar has blocked ~2026-12969-72 for 72 hours due to "abusing multiple accounts", but the personal attacks remain unaddressed. I'm not sure of the rationale behind a limited block given that WP:SOCK says If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. Combine the multiple accounts with the personal attacks, and I think the case for a WP:NOTHERE indef block is fairly clear. This TA's sole purpose appears to be making unproductive comments at sockpuppet investigation cases (including filing this case which has absolutely no supporting evidence). Astaire (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Seems like the TA's focus has now shifted to M.Bitton and Skitash as those two have been in dispute with the suspected sock/meatpuppets (including the now blocked sock, Ryuudou) listed in the Ethiopian Epic SPI case (see the revision history of Talk:North Africa). Some1 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  There are no edits by TAs to Talk:North Africa today not least because the page was semi-protected yesterday morning. Do you have any diffs from today? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Zard Patton Ka Bunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello! I am a new editor trying to create a draft for the Pakistani drama series Zard Patton Ka Bunn via the Article Wizard. However, I am receiving an error that the title is blacklisted. This is a notable television series produced by Momina Duraid and the Kashf Foundation starring Sajal Aly. Could an administrator please create the draft page for me or tell me how to proceed? Thank you! Zenjiya (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not blacklisted, it's protected due to sockpuppets repeatedly recreating the article. Pinging @Ivanvector: as the protector of Zard Patton Ka Bunn and the note on said protection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it's not blacklisted? It's in the title blacklist as ".*zard.*patton.*". I'm not familiar enough with the case to feel comfortable unilaterally removing a title blacklist entry, so I'd suggest that Zenjiya use User:Zenjiya/sandbox to create a draft. That would give us an idea of whether the article would fit our policies. Or Zenjiya could wait for someone like Ivanvector, who seems more familiar with the issue than me, to decide whether it's time to remove this title from the blacklist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would be astonished if Zenjiya isn't a sockpuppet of the SPI that was at the time of the protection called Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress but is now called WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Stereotypical Name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me, but I'm not especially familiar with StayCalmOnTress. I think I blocked a sock puppet or two, but that's not really enough for me to get a feel for someone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Why? Isn't writing articles on notable topics what we're supposed to do? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Ah, my bad - I simply saw it was admin-locked and presumed that was what the OP meant. Remind me to have more coffee when posting at that time of night! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The subject is definitely notable, it's just that it's never been created by a user that wasn't a sock. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

User: Win Kyaw is currently engaged in edit warring, personal atttacks, and assuming bad faith. I pride myself on trying(key word, trying) to stamp out vandalism, and NPOV editing (as with now blocked user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).) 3 days ago I noticed an IP (72.45.163.130) making disruptive and NPOV edits to many articles about Rohingya people and Arakan/Rakhine. I then noticed that Win Kyaw (talk · contribs) editing nearly every article the IP did (24 out of 27) and editing similarly. I started an SPI because I noticed what I thought was a pattern of POV editing. I misunderstood Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin, an SPI, and figured they were socks of Tuwintowin, which I assumed was a master sock that was blocked. It is clear now that the account Tutwintuwin was appealed and has since been renamed twice, first to Imwin567, now Win Kyaw -- though those confirmed socks of the user are still banned, and they showed a lot of problematic edits, edit warring, and disruptive editing. I apologized to the user and stated I wished to withdraw the case and 'ceased editing articles they are involved with, but their actions since have renewed my concerns about their history of disruptive editing, blanking, and unexplained edits to articles pertaining to Rakhine/Arakan, the Rohingya and Rohingya genocide. (I had also realised the IP and Win Kyaw were not the same.) Some of these edits seem to imply whether intentional or not, the Myanmar government's commonly seen as racist talking point that "Rohingya are non-native Bengalis from South Asia that need to be removed" that they use to justify the genocide, which has been debunked. (see this Time Magazine article, for instance.) Some further instances of behavior are:

• Edit warring 1: After I apologized, the user edit warred with me and undid my removal of unsourced content at Battle of Sittwe and re-added it.
• Personal attacks: They attacked me personally by asking "are you blind?" in the edit summary.
• Edit warring 2, disruptive editing: Out of many other examples seen in their contributions history accross all of their sock accounts as well as this main accoung -- just now they engaged in edit warring with me and removed nearly the entire section on the Rohingya genocide in the Racism in Asia article, claiming that including the reason for Rohingya leaving is "undue weight," despite that content being sourced with 8 sources and being there largely since 2017. The content was changed from

"Since 2015, over 900,000 Rohingya refugees have fled to southeastern Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other surrounding countries, and major Muslim nations. More than 100,000 Rohingyas in Myanmar are confined in camps for internally displaced persons. Shortly before a Rohingya rebel attack that killed 12 security forces, August 25, 2017, the Myanmar military had launched "clearance operations" against the Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state that left over 3,000 dead, many more injured, tortured or raped, villages burned. Over 603,000 Rohingya from Myanmar, fled to Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other countries. According to the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission, about 624,000 Rohingyas entered Bangladesh until November 7."

to

"By 2025, over 1 million Rohingya from Myanmar fled to Bangladesh alone, and more have fled to other countries. According to the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission, about 624,000 Rohingyas entered Bangladesh until November 7, 2017."

This section once had 14 sources, now it only has 4.

• Disruptive editing 2 : Another example is they unilaterally moved the Bengali Hindus in Myanmar article to Bengalis in Myanmar and changed the entire structure of the article to add a section called "Bengali Muslims," in which they added content about the Rohingya, seeming to imply they are sharing the Myanmar government's genocidal claims that Rohingya are actually Bengali Muslims and non-indigenous.

Of the seven sources they added:

1 ("Aye Chan 2005") appears to link to Wikipedia itself and is cited 3 times.

1 is a source that does not work and also parrots the government's talking points on Rohingyas by calling Rohingyas "Bengali." When i found the archived version , I noticed it used very inflammatory claims like "Rohingya campaigners," and claiming at the end that "Rohingya/Bengali community we've seen today had already shaping up as of 1942."

1 is used 2 times and has no information ()

• Assuming bad faith 1 / personal attack / edit warring 3 : In [this edit] at Min Saw Mon, they assume bad faith and accuse me of editing "based on solely user's identity as per evidence from user's spi." and revert my edit, seemingly implying that I am racist.
• Assuming bad faith 2 / personal attack / edit warring 4: Here they reverted my undoing of an unsourced edit from an IP with an even more problematic editing history, and claimed it was due to "speculation & assumptions of user's identity"
• Assuming bad faith 3 / personal attack : On their talk page they removed most of the correspondence I have had with them, including many warnings, and state that I did it ["based on speculations and assumptions on my identity and a failed attempt of making an user blocked based for 5 legitimate hours."], whilst also citing WP:NPA.

There are other examples of disruptive editing, and the above, all in their edit history. They had also accused me of being a paid editor at the SPI, and I feel like they implied numerous times that I was stalking them. I am concerned, and I could be wrong, but I do not want to risk being a one person army and am trying to back off so as to not appear I am harassing the editor. They have numerous warnings that they have removed from their talk page detailing problematic editing patterns throughout the past couple years, including on their confirmed sock accounts, and it shows in their contributions history. I am bringing this here and not responding to any messages from User:Win Kyaw as to de-escalate and hoping for assistance. I also will not respond to anything unless folks are asking for a direct response. Thanks much.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

this user is WP:HOUNDING.

there is no edit warring. Edit warring refers to WP:3RR. This user wants me to take permission from him for all edits I make. I have never been in any edit warring rather than this guy because mainly he is WP:HOUNDING. You are accused of WP:PERSONALATTACK (point 1, 2 and 3) in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin (admins please do read his texts here). This guy would also placed random edit warnings in my talk page just to make me get blocked (it's his aim)..

There is nothing wrong with my edits for over an year, I have received no warnings or reverts for a very long time. Additionally telling ur blind is not personal attack, it might fall into sarcasm area. This user also adds I'm vandalizing while theres zero history about it. One admin has already warned this guy on his talk page because his behaviour is clearly disruptive. Thank u! WinKyaw (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding: his reason to revert my edits are based on my ethnicity. His logic is similar to Jewish people's edits on Palestinians topics must be taken as fishy and NPOV because their government is. Similarly he keeps reverting my edits just because of my ethnicity and identity (see his accusations on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin). His only excuse of my edits being NPOV is that I'm burmese notice what he said here = I have noticed that you are clearly Burmese and that a lot of your edits ~ my edits are removing WP:UNDUE weight, but he terms it as NPOV out of no reason based on my nationality. I mean, literally, if you find it problematic, revert it with a source and reason, but he would not, he would find ways to fill SPI, give "final warnings" on talk page and further threats very openly. He spent 5-6 hours on finding blatant speculations only to make my account blocked (failed attempted).

Notice how he also said "I pride myself on trying(key word, trying) to stamp out vandalism, and NPOV editing (as with now blocked user Icewhiz" at the first line in this case, this concludes to he would try to do anything to make his targeted account blocked out of no reason and by spreading false allegations. He has done WP:PERSONALATTACK (passing all of the first 3 points) based on ethnicity, identity and even age in the SPI (look at this revision (He said I was checking page reversions on their profile and found out they [are 17 years old). This guy went around my whole Wikipedia history, then would note my age, research about my ethnicity, name and say more further stuff as if me being 17 or belonging to particular nation makes me ineligible to edit Wikipedia). He just wouldn’t stop until I get blocked as hes clearly on a mission with WP:HOUNDING. WinKyaw (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

If you think edit warring requires breaking the bright line 3 revert rule, you're seriously mistaken and for an account with as much history as yours it's very concerning you still haven't learnt such basics of editing here particularly when you edit areas prone to disputes. Whatever else, you need to seriously pay more attention to our policies and guidelines and what editors are telling you if you want to continue to edit. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

R9tgokunks can you explain why you thought it was relevant that the Win Kyaw may be Burmese in the comment you made here ? If WinKyaw is inappropriate removing sourced content as you stated, then that's a problem but Win Kyaw's ethnicity or nationality is irrelevant to that. 12:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Could some other admins please come take a look at Talk:Child_sexuality#Sexualisation and the discussion there?

The short version is that TedEdwards (talk · contribs) removed an image with the claim that by adding it to the article it sexualizes the child and is thus illegal. Drew McNish (talk · contribs) reverted that removal and disagrees with TedEdwards. I believe that TedEdwards' interpretation is incorrect and veering into legal threat territory. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I refute the idea I am veering towards legal threats? I have not made any indication I want to start legal proceedings against any editor or Wikipedia as a whole. I am not a lawyer, so my legal reasoning could well be wrong but it is not threatening. My comments on U.S. law are that suggesting a non-sexual image of a naked child depicts sexualization of a child could be legally problematic (again in hypothetical proceedings I am not going to start or be involved in). While I'll leave most of this for the relevant talk page, my argument around using that image is not solely based on the law. --TedEdwards 23:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If I can say, I am not saying the image should stay or be removed either way. What I am saying is that if it is it should not be on false grounds as I think is the case, or that there may be other remedies. Also the legal threat matter doesn't concern me as I made no such accusations. Drew McNish (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I do also want to make clear that I have made two points pushing for the removal of the image; only one was mentioned by EvergreenFir. The other one I'll summarise as, given the photo of the naked child is not sexual, it is not relevant to a section about the Sexualization of children when no further context for the image was given. --TedEdwards 00:35, 16 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)

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)

There's a non-admin close review being discussed at Talk:Yeison Jiménez. I'm notifying this board since people often look here for close reviews. All of the involved participants have been pinged, but this would presumably benefit from uninvolved input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I request a review of the closure of the merge discussion for "2026 Paipa Piper PA-31 crash".

1. The closing statement claims that merge supporters "argued convincingly", yet a review of the discussion shows no such thing. Their arguments consisted entirely of repeating "routine aviation accident", copy-pasting "WP:NOTINHERITED", and insisting there was "no secondary coverage" while systematically ignoring the sources I provided. Meanwhile, the keep side presented independent Colombian media sources (El Tiempo, Portafolio) that analyzed the crash itself — not just Jiménez's biography — documented lasting effects including riots and a tribute with 14,000 attendees, and directly addressed why WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply when the crash and the death are the same event. The closer simply counted votes and called it consensus, which violates WP:CONSENSUS.

2. The closing statement asserts that there is "general agreement" the crash itself is not notable. This ignores that the crash is inseparable from Jiménez's death — it is the event that killed him. The same "logic" would require merging the 1999 Martha's Vineyard plane crash into John F. Kennedy Jr.'s article, yet that article has stood for decades because the event involving a notable figure is itself notable. The cultural impact — nationwide mourning, police intervention at a tribute, official statements at the presidential level — demonstrates WP:LASTING effects that belong to the crash, not just to Jiménez's biography.

3. The decision was made prematurely. The discussion repeatedly featured claims that there would be "no in-depth coverage" and that the preliminary report would not generate sustained interest. Yet sources published weeks before the closure — including El Tiempo's detailed analysis of the preliminary report, expert commentary in Infobae, and coverage in Blu Radio and Noticias Caracol — already proved otherwise. These sources demonstrate that the crash received the very type of continued, analytical coverage that merge supporters insisted would never appear. The article was not a permastub but a developing page with guaranteed future content.

4. The closer ignored my detailed analysis of WP:PAGEDECIDE (see my comment from 13 January 2026, 13:58 UTC), which demonstrated that a standalone article better serves reader understanding, that merging risks violating the "space availability" principle, that the biography provides no needed context for the aviation details, and that the article has clear expansion potential. The closer did not address any of these points, simply asserting that merge supporters "argued convincingly" without engaging with the counterarguments. This is not a proper closure.

Since opening this review, none of the merge supporters have provided a substantive explanation for why the sources I provided (El Tiempo, Infobae, Blu Radio, Noticias Caracol) are insufficient. @11WB, who initially claimed there was "no evidence of WP:SIGCOV", eventually admitted that El Tiempo counts as significant coverage, then dismissed the others with "too short" — a criterion that does not exist in policy. @Rosbif73 have simply repeated earlier arguments without engaging with the sources. This only confirms that the original discussion was closed without proper consideration of the available evidence.

I request that the closure be reviewed. Shiningr3ds (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Module:F1_2021_Results/testcases ~2026-16929-85 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)