Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This user has been edit warring for the page Ba'athist Syria, example. The issue here is WP:DUE, plus he says Rv, some of those sources DO infact call it Assadist Syria. I will check every source right now so I’m going to add them back for now and investigate., thus he adds sources without checking them??? I went to the user's talkpage User talk:ErickTheMerrick#Edit warring. He calls me "buddy" and says he will check the sources: Buddy, its been like a day. Chill the hell out. I will check them when I can. then I say: I'm not your buddy. Stop placing sources you didn't even check. Even if it use, it doesn't mean should be included. WP:DUE. then the user says: I will call your whatever I want buddy :). Did you understand what I said? I'm temporarily putting them back so I can check them later. I don't understand. Why should be there unverified stuff here, plus being impolite. Beshogur (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

For the love of God. I will check them. You already reverted the edit. I will check them eventually. You have overreacted like crazy here and you need to stop. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel a particular need to be polite to you because you are pushing this over nothing. I just added them back so it would be easier to edit. You removed them again so why are you still complaining? This is ridiculous. You need to show restraint and patience. You have made this into a bigger deal than was necessary and I ask for this to be removed as this isn't a relevant or big deal. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

If you haven't checked if the sources support the claim that is being made, and if they are reliable sources, then you shouldn't be adding them. And if an edit is reverted, you take it to the talk page and discuss not continue to push the edit. You'd think you'd know that by now with your block log. Only reliable sources, and only sources that clearly support the point being made. Canterbury Tail talk 03:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ErickTheMerrick, you wrote I just added them back so it would be easier to edit. No. That's not how it works. If a source has been challenged and you have not investigated it enough to vouch for it, then do not add it back to an article. You can put it on the article talk page with an explanatory note. You can put it in one of your sandbox pages. And then check it later. But if you put it back into an article when another editor has removed it, you are endorsing the reliability of the source and accuracy of its use. That is how this encyclopedia operates. Also, do not call another editor "buddy" when they have asked you not to. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

K. I won't do it again. Happy now? Also, if its my talk page, can't I call him what I want as long as it isn't something offensive like slurs? I don't think he showed me respect so I didn't give him it either. ErickTheMerrick (they/them) (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to think you should try to be as civil as you can be with anyone who seems to be here to build an encyclopedia. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 09:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages are not sanctuaries from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A personal attack or insult about another editor that would be over the line in article space or project space is also over the line on your talk page. Talk pages are not an editor's private space, but a place for suitable discussions about Wikipedia. While some off-topic banter is generally considered acceptable, using a talk page to say thing about an editor you couldn't say elsewhere is not. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe that ErickTheMerrick has not truly changed his tone on edit warring. (See here for the following details.) November of 2024, blocked for 24 hrs for violating 3RR. September 2025, blocked for two weeks for edit warring. October 3, 2025, blocked 3 months for edit warring.

He's also just a bit rude sometimes too. Not grumpy, mind you. I believe maybe a 0RR might work, but he breaks that, and that might be the end. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

He also made a personal attack against Nikkimaria saying you make these kinds of low quality edits all the time and all you do is degrade the quality of this website and its pages. I do hope that you can change and edit better, but after all this time, I’m not sure you will.. I suggest that he be topic-banned from "Socialism (including, but not limited to communism, socialist political theorists, socialist states) broadly construed" because I don't think he makes these types of edits (personal attacks, ignoring consensus, editwarring) on pages that are unrelated to socialism. He also ignores consensus: uses term "Marxist-Leninist state" when it was chosen not be used . This was before his latest block, but he was not blocked for bludgeoning (which he does at Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_“totalitarian_military_dictatorship“_be_added_to_the_gov’t_infobox?) so I thought I'd mention it. He has removed sourced content , when the page explicitly says, with a source, that it was a provisional government (the subsequent occupation and creation of a provisional administrative government gave hope for ending Ottoman Turkish rule) He keeps ignoring BRD and repeated explanations of what an infobox is supposed to contain , . A 0RR would be helpful is his problematic edits only extended towards revert-warring but instead there are a variety of disappointing behaviors that he engages in a specific topic-area, so a topic ban should be more appropriate. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@ThatTrainGuy1945 @EasternShah They, not he. Their preferred pronouns are in their signature. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Just stop. ~2026-13149-89 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 02:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

apologies, I did not mean to misgender them Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 02:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Mistergender. You mistergendered them. EEng 01:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on socialist/communist politics, but I'll try my best to scrutinize these diffs you've provided anyways.

: This could have been worded a lot less rudely, but there is a lot of focus on content in that diff aside from that. There is still something of a personal attack, though.

: "No consensus" is a lot different than "consensus against", and I don't see a consensus against Erick's change in the discussion you linked.

Talk:Somali_Democratic_Republic#RfC:_Should_“totalitarian_military_dictatorship“_be_added_to_the_gov’t_infobox?: This was their first RfC, I think it's an understandable lack of grace.

: This diff doesn't seem to remove any content, it just formats it differently.

and : This isn't good behavior, and might warrant a conversation about proper behavior regarding content disputes for infoboxes specifically. Has Erick's misbehavior been exclusive to content in infoboxes, and has Erick been made aware of WP:CT/CID? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Communist state#Requested move 23 December 2025 and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 262#Laos (where the user did not engage, unless i am mistaken; this is bad behavior especially for people who have a habit of edit warring), the user was involved in both, so they know not to use "Marxist-Leninist" (as opposed to "Communist") but they are adding it back in diff 325 anyway. 324 is not something of a personal attack, it is a blatant personal attack. Previously, this user has also attacked Nikkimaria at Talk:Kingdom of Romania#Government infobox: Just because you don't like an edit, doesn't give you the right to delete it as you please. I am getting quite sick of these needless oversimplification tantrums. Its getting old, so please find something better to do with your time. (implying Nikkimaria is throwing tantrums); Your refusal to the addition of this content along with others makes me think you are acting in bad faith. Every time I make a sourced edit, you seem to flock to revert it on the grounds of breaking WP:IBP when you know damn well that it doesn't. literally assuming bad faith and a WP:ASPERSION, I don’t have time to deal with your constant whining and complaining over and over belitting Nikkimaria. erick says you seem like a vindictive person
If you look at their block log, they keep being blocked for edit-warring and it seems like it a continued habit of this user. In the various talk page discussions they have participated in, they have been warned for bludgeoning (for example, Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?) These things show a weak understanding of consensus and how it is formed.
I think a community block or indefinite block is justified because of this, the editor seems to not understand various policies (WP:IBP, WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:EW) after multiple blocks and warnings. If this user does engage in discussion after reverts, they usually tend to ignore multiple other editors' input. For example, Talk:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic#Government (not dropping the stick after another user agrees with Nikkimaria). This user previously engaged in problematic behaviors on a page not related to socialism, leading to a block. So there isn't a reason to suspect that this user won't continue problematic behavior on non-socialism pages. As I have pointed out, their problematic behavior does not only start and stop with edit-warring, although that does show WP:INCIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which deters consensus and collaboration. This can be seen with their edit-warring: they think that what they write is good and that it should stay. At Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Totalitarianism in government infobox and the aforementioned Talk:Somali Democratic Republic#RfC: Should “totalitarian military dictatorship“ be added to the gov’t infobox?, they seem very concerned with adding totalitarianism to the infobox which leads to bludgeoning. This can be interpreted as an attempt to fix articles that don't expose and condemn totalitarianism enough, regardless of Wikipedia policy or even consensus.
This leads to the question, has the user been given enough WP:ROPE? Have they not had enough chances? When will we say enough is enough? I would say that they have had enough chances, at least for a while; they've been blocked numerous times, told that their behavior is problematic, have had other people try to resolve disputes (discussions initiated, the DRN filing), been warned, etc. I think that they should be blocked right now, and later a WP:STANDARDOFFER can be evaluated. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 04:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided here, the common thread is infoboxes, not necessarily socialism. It seems that this editor has yet to be informed of infoboxes being a sanctionable contentions topic, so I would disagree that they have exhausted their last chance. Not being informed of the contentious topic is not an excuse, but it could have perhaps avoided a lot of headache. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 05:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The disputes may be over infoboxes, but this users' responses to the various disputes above would be just as problematic if not in a contentious topic area. The contentious topic notification is only needed to topic-ban users (I am not sure about this), but the continuous misbehavior seems to warrant more action than that anyway. Also, another common thread is totalitarianism. This is present both when the user argues for the labeling of a country as totalitarian and (perhaps) when the user wants "Marxist-Leninist" to be used rather than just communist. This is because some left communists, anarcho-communists, and libertarian communists may want to say that some states were 'marxist-leninist' rather than their One True Communism which doesn't allow xyz. This is an observation of tendencies off-wiki and I may understand that it may be seen as an aspersion, but I am trying to offer a plausible rationale for a user's behavior. Note that the user classified themselves as a libertarian socialist/anarchist , . Though they removed all mentions of it on their talk page here. If you look at their current user page, they believe that Marxist-Leninism [sic] is state capitalist and totalitarian, being a terrible pervasion of Marxism. and that more democratic and co-operative form of socialism should be implemented. They wanna join DSA, showing that they favor reform and like 1984, which is an anti-totalitarian novel. In its totality, these things show that this user has a motive to have a battleground attitude against statist, non-utopian socialism; their actions, which I've already discussed and as such will refrain from doing so again, show the rest. At the very least, this isn't about just infoboxes but rather infoboxes and socialism. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 05:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, this is not just an issue with disputes between Erick and Nikkimaria, see Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Government (this time mostly between User:TheUzbek and User:TheodoresTomfooleries) where Erick is again pushing for totalitarianism to be listed in the infobox. Consensus there seemed to be that it is a violation of the purpose of an infobox. Again a pattern of pushing for totalitarianism to be added where it may be undue. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 18:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Or there's also this long-term edit war/content dispute , , , , As User:Beshogur mentions in the history, there are also concerns about page ranges and checking sources. We do see the common thread of both totalitarianism and infoboxes here, but source-content integrity is also a concern. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• And they're still at it, edit warring over items they're adding and insisting that they are included (in this instance against the discussion consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd like to add, when I first pointed out how their comment on their talk page thread was WP:INCIVIL, their reply didn't admit fault in any way, and, based on their replies in this ANI thread, they didn't at any point seem to understand that they did anything wrong or against policy. I recall seeing them say something to the effect of K. I won't do it again. on several occasions about several different violations, and I've yet to notice a significant change in their behaviour.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread isn't the appropriate place to raise this, but I find problems regarding the 'ideology' and 'position' fields of political party infoboxes comes up with a number of editors, not just ErickTheMerrick. It appears as a structural problem, as these two infobox fields are so arbitrary by default that they invite a lot of guesstimating and opinions. As for this ANI thread in particular I find ErickTheMerrick to be an editor that appears to act in good faith, but a loose cannon on sourcing and WP:OR issues and as such repeatedly finds himself pushing a positions on individual articles when edits are challenged. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

From scrutinizing their edits, I get the same impression of a loose cannon sort of editor. I see good faith in there, though, and I do hope a productive editor eventually comes out of this (as I would hope for any editor, to be honest).

I really do think it might be the infobox parameters that are the culprit; it's as if they cause madness in editors. Perhaps more vigilance about WP:CT/CID is necessary? MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 11:15, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• None of this is new, fwiw: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1181#WP:OR,_MOS:SOB,_WP:DE_and_WP:AGF_violations_from_User:ErickTheMerrick describes exactly the same issues. ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• And here's another. Instead of responding here and making a case for themselves, and attempting to do better, they're tweaking their User page with acknowledging edit summaries instead of dealing with the results of their edits. Seems clear they're not interested in engaging on the topic of their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it is in good faith, and I do not mean this rudely, but then that is still a problem because WP:CIR. If one don't understand dispute resolution, the purposes of an infobox, original research/verifiability guidelines, bludgeoning guidelines, civility, etc., and is harming other editors or pages because of it, then that is a good reason for you to take an enforced break from Wikipedia (or the specific topic-area) too. Yet there is also plausible suspicion that this user is here to push an agenda, as I've detailed above. That doesn't necessarily need to be true either, but their behavior needs improvement, in my opinion. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-13552-25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user barely made two edits. Their first one to Political positions of Javier Milei contains this edit summary regarding Milei's remarks about William and Zachary Zulock. I believe that it warrants a "NONAZIS" but if not, I humbly ask you to consider that someone who agrees with such a comparison between a crime and gay men does not belong here. CoryGlee 16:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I agree. They also seem to have a skewed political position on arab-israel matters, in favor of Israel. It certainly warrants a block. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No personal offense intended, TBOTN, but that feels like a pretty slap-dash response. I share the OP's analysis that the edit summary is suggestive of a bigoted and ignorant world view, but nothing in the edit towards the forward facing content itself was disruptive or against policy--the edit was entirely focused on punctuation which did not change the framing of the content. Despite a perennial inability of ANI complainants to accept the fact, WP:NONAZIS is an essay, which the community has consistently declined to adopt as policy. In other words, having social views which depart from the norms of our typical editor is not in itself grounds for sanction. One could argue that repeatedly making polemical edit summaries like the one involved here could eventually rise to the level of disruption, but surely an indef for the first such summary, without any effort at outreach or attempt to educate on project norms is out of proportion to the need here.

And look, I'm not even particularly concerned about this user's editorial rights being preserved; I'm as skeptical as the OP that they are WP:HERE for proper purposes or can be converted to a useful contributor. Rather, this is more about the health of our own processes and keeping our community from developing a propensity for knee-jerk responses and walled garden mentalities regardign controversial topics, where we flippantly and lightly excise editors for having views contrary to our personal beliefs. I just feel that something more is called for here.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I have doubts about WP:NONAZIS, on the grounds that we shouldn't act as the thought police, but when it comes to actions, such as edit summaries, I think something should be done. I, a straight man, feel safer knowing that this user is not editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I get it, and I also won't lose any sleep over the absence of this editor. But I remain concerned about the principle. One edit summary suggestive of bias is very weak tea for justifying an indef, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary said all I needed to know, this is clearly someone with an ax to grind without any intention of actually being constructive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

In all likelihood, yes. But we typically don't indef editors based purely on our suspicions that their personal views are likely to prevent them from contributing in good faith, before substantial disruption actually takes place. Believe me, as someone with some skin in the game when it comes to the form of bigotry implied here, I am not excited to be fighting on this hill for this particular editor. But blocks for people whom we anticipate to be problem editors merely based on their expressed views are a bridge too far to me. I honestly don't believe anyone would have blocked the TA (and probably no one would have even brought this edit to ANI for review in the first place) had the edit summary said "Milei was wrong", even though that would have been equally as suggestive of a potentially WP:NOTHERE POV as the actual edit summary, under relevant policy.

And I think that should concern us, even if every one of us here finds the "Milei was right" comment to be indicative of bigotry, as a matter of calling a spade for a spade. I get the impulse to say "Let's not get caught up in a WP:BURO debate over someone that is most likely here to advance a non-encyclopedic agenda," but indefs are not light sanctions and are not meant to be first-line responses before we even make an attempt at explaining principle guidelines and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they will adjust better than we suspect they can. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Astonishing that you think this is worth your (or anyone else's) time. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, perhaps my experience with the project's systems suggests larger longterm concerns at stake here than one (probably NOTHERE) user's editing privileges, which may not be immediately apparent to you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Snow Rise, I did not request an indef block. That was the administrator's decision which goes beyond my knowledge as to what sanction is appropriate for these cases. As for you pointing out to ...no one would have even brought this edit to ANI if it said that Milei was wrong is factually inaccurate. It was not based on a political position but on a simple crime bias POV. If the TA had inserted a "Milei was wrong" edit summary, that would have pointed to a bias, yes. However, and conversely, a "Milei was right" is not an inoffensive political position. It agrees with the discredited hateful rhetoric that gay men are all Zulocks, as Milei kind of implied.

Again, I have no knowledge as to whether this warranted an indef block. CoryGlee 03:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Enough. Just stop. ~2026-13679-38 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say this, not being an administrator myself, but this is a really silly way for a temp account to be talking on policy matters. Not saying that I'm implying anything, but maybe a checkuser could see if something's happening here? (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 03:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I see you are fairly new here. A word of advice: don’t throw around suggestions of involving checkusers lightly. If you have actual evidence that requires a check by checkusers, take it to WP:SPI. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Well put. I agree with you here. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 03:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I know I'm new myself, but based on what I've seen here there are plenty of editors who've caused long term problems that are still given ample WP:ROPE with mild sanctions in the hopes that they ARE in fact WP:HERE and only have issues with a certain topic, other user, etc. As distasteful as I find this user's apparent personal beliefs, indef over a single edit summary feels disproportionately harsh. I don't believe their grand total of two minor edits proves they're WP:NOTHERE, especially when the second one appears to be a correct reversion of a problematic edit. Do we really want to set a precedent of WP:BITEing newbies with an indef for their very first edit? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this. They might not be one of our most constructive editors, but an indef for a single edit summary, even if very distasteful, is an overreaction in my opinion. If they're the kind of person described in WP:NONAZIS, we'll find it soon enough, but we shouldn't block over what might happen.

As any lawyer will tell you, defending people who are unjustly sanctioned includes defending people whose behavior you find morally repugnant, because if they're not given fair protection, no one is. Wikipedia isn't a courtroom, but I believe this same principle applies here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I hate +1 edits, but...+1.

I imagine that I would not be very happy with this editor after having a discussion about the underlying philosophical issues, but this is more mission creep. We shouldn't tolerate actual disruptive hate, but we do need to actually be fair. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Frankly this whole thread kind of demonstrates one way in which WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE. One editor made one hateful comment and this was the result. If this isn't disruption I'm not sure what counts. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never been a great fan of of NONAZIS or HID myself as I've mentioned before although never cared enough to debate it much. As I've said before, I think we should have a very low tolerance for anything affecting the encyclopaedia proper that seems to come from such views, but talk page comments and even edit summaries should receive more tolerance. I think it's fine to make it clear to editors they need to cut it out, but we don't have to blocked them so soon. That said, since this involves a TA I feel this particular case is much more meh. I mean technically yes it means any future edits from whoever is behind the TA is block evasion but practically no one is likely to notice unless they repeat that nonsense. More significantly, it's far more difficult to establish they're actually here to build an encyclopaedia as a TA. So IMO there's less reason to be fussed over a perhaps too soon indefinite block. As for Simonm223's point, well the alternative view is that if we'd just given the editor a clear warning they need to cut it out and closed this thread, there would be no thread to complain about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I don't disagree with you about the tactics of dealing with hate from a TA at all. Tell them to cut it out, hat talk page threads, it's probably more effective than playing blocked-IP-whackamole. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm more concerned with the example it sets than this particular TA. I agree that hatting and ignoring mildly disruptive content from TAs is probably the best route, because there seem to be plenty who just want attention. Shut them down and move on. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't deny there is some merit to your reasoning that the TA context makes for a meaningful distinction with regard to the longterm implications of sanctions. Still, in terms of shutting down communication and shutting that editor out of the community for most intents and purposes, it's a pretty severe penalty. And I think it's worth asking the question whether that one, non-content-related action justifies that response, as a result of many of us (myself most undoubtedly included) finding their apparent stance on a certain social issue to be objectionable. We do, afterall, have a block policy that at a minimum needs to be respected. When I look at WP:WHYBLOCK or even WP:DBLOCK, I don't think I see a strong link between the current situation and any of the circumstances described there for when a block is appropriate, aside from the vaguest and most speculative suggestion that this user was innately set to be disruptive.

I do believe reasonable minds can differ on the right pragmatic call here. But I'd like to observe that in addition to scope and policy creep, process decline belongs on the list of things which large collaborative projects have to regularly address. We have still not as a community fully settled upon the implications for application of various measures in the new TA scheme. My own position I think is that if we're going to start abbreviating process and abrogating requirements of the blocking policy, that's probably something that should be authorized by community discussion and augmentation of the language in said policy, rather than ad hoc at ANI.

At the same time, I fully recognize that the editor we are currently discussing doesn't represent the most appealing case for justifying the effort. Fair enough to anyone who feels that way: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can count me in that group. I still worry about the precedent itself though. To my eye, this isn't about that particular TA. It's about how reflexive we are willing to be, in our current circumstances, to the act of casting someone out of the community at the first sign of maybe holding to views which the majority find to be somewhere between concerning and amoral, before an actual and persistent pattern of disruption has occurred and before we have the kind of context for their objectives, beliefs and behaviours that can only come from outreach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, for once my newness comes in handy! Since I'm still learning about these policies and seeing how they're enforced. Fresh eyes so to speak. TAs grant an extra degree of anonymity above and beyond that of a pseudonym screenname or even static IP, and from what I've seen - taking into consideration that I have no knowledge of "behind the scenes" events from IP days - it seems to encourage socking and disruption, so I do think developing guidelines with more restrictions for them might be prudent. Like perhaps not jumping into moderation disputes to make a single unconstructive comment? But as you say, that shouldn't be used as justification for policy creep when no such guidelines exist. This looks like a kneejerk response that probably would not have been applied to a registered user - especially one with a constructive history, but even a registered newbie would usually be given more leeway per WP:BITE.

Technical question - since IPs ARE still logged and just not visible without the right credentials, is there some reason for using TAs that can just be flushed with the cache as opposed to assigning a permanent anonymized string to an IP, so their history is still linked? I assume in the past there were cases of shared external IPs and a protocol for handling them. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not super familiar with the discussions which led the adoption of the TA scheme, but I'd speculate that the idea of having a 1:1 relationship between each IP and a single anonymized string was found to be less practical as it could lead to editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts, treating all content arising from that anonymized string as probably coming from the same user, which would rarely be the case. I think the idea of having those contributions divied up through a local machine certification would also result in increased transparency for most forms of disruption: while you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen, so the TA scheme actually provides increased distinction between edits resulting from the same public IP that were absent under the old system, for a majority of cases, if you follow my meaning. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

While you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen

I won't even attempt to define "most" here, but I think the rampant sock activity proves there are plenty who do. Or use multiple devices, privacy mode, etc. Enough to be a problem. As far as editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts how is it any different than people who didn't understand IPs? I'm not proposing using a pseudo-username, but something like a randomly generated alphanumeric string. The same functionality as the IP system but just masking the numbers so they can't be geolocated. I don't think assuming users are ignorant luddites is an appropriate basis for policy development. We expect editors to familiarize themselves with countless guidelines in order to make well structured and constructive edits - I don't think asking them to read a single page explaining the new format would be too much to ask. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

TAs have been forced through for legal reasons (GDPR, etc.) There have been lengthy discussions over this which you can see if you look through the WP:CENT archives. There has been great resistance and WMF is trying to convince us that this won't be that bad. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I realize that they had to move away from visible IPs for legal reasons, I'm just not convinced that the way it was implemented is a good choice. They could even have done something that would include both the generated IP substitute as well as a session ID. I think the current method is going to continue to cause issues and will need to be readdressed sooner or later. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "this is a big deal because we overreacted about it being a big deal" is all that convincing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed by all the people questioning this block. It takes zero effort to refrain from broadcasting one's bigotry to the world. And the line must be drawn somewhere, right? If in an edit summary someone said "Hitler was right about the Jews" I don't think anyone would hesitate about a block. Why is "Milei is right to call trans people pedophiles" a statement that deserves any leeway at all? Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful. The issue is that if people are banned instantaneously without a CBAN or anything first, it could become a slippery slope. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Evicting the intolerant with speed and extreme prejudice is necessary to maintain a tolerant environment. The fact that nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful is exactly evidence that there is no 'slippery slope' here. This is not an edge case or grey area, it was a clear cut broadcast of bigotry which was acted on with appropriate haste. Athanelar (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that there needs to be a line, and right now there isn't one. If there is, it's obviously difficult enough to tell that it has the same outcome as not having a line. WP:NONAZIS is an essay, and not a policy, and the lack of a policy in this type of situation is distressing. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Consensus is king and PAGs should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If the community norm is (as it should be and seems to be) to promptly block those who display unabashed bigotry, then the only thing stopping NONAZIS, NORACISTS, NOQUEERPHOBIA etc from being a policy/guideline rather than an essay is that nobody's taken the effort to write up the proposal and run the RfC. Athanelar (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I appreciate your desire for a more bullish policy in this area, but that's just not remotely how the consensus process works here when it comes to guidelines, behavioural or otherwise. "I am pretty sure that most people agree with me about this essay and therefor we should treat it like community consensus" is not a valid argument for bootstrapping said essay into an effective guideline. See WP:PAG#Role, WP:PGLIFE, and WP:PROPOSAL; a certain line of thought or formal procedure gets adopted as formal community consensus through a meticulous process of vetting in centralized community discussion, not through an ad-hoc vibes check, to use the parlance of the day, when someone wants to treat an essay like policy in a particular situation--no offense intended.

Further, and of particular relevance to your position, there have in fact been many community discussions in recent years about the prospect of NONAZI's being adopted as policy, and to-date the community has always declined to. Although the community has a strong incentive in discouraging bad actors who come here with a bigoted agenda, the community as a whole finds the particular verbiage and approach of NONAZIS to be unwieldy and impractical as a prospective guideline. Even though large portions of the individual statements found in NONAZIS can (in my personal opinion anyway) reasonably be described as common sense, the community still has deep reservations about the knock-on effects of requiring individual editors to conform to purity tests on this or that personal value or belief. For better or worse, the community feels that divisive commentary--from controversial statements all the way up to outright hate speech--are effectively addressed through our existing WP:DISRUPTION model, and that making NONAZIs policy would only confuse and inflame discussion of these issues. That could always change in the future, but to the extent that you believe NONAZIs is not a PAG merely because no one ever pushed for it to become one, I'd like to assure you, that is not the case. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Make Wikipedia:No Nazis a policy?. Some1 (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you said what meant there, Phlogiston Enthusiast. A CBAN is a ban, the most difficult type of ban to get lifted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Athanelar. Wikipedia has had a big problem with POV bigots lately (racists/sexists/transphobes who are emboldened) and if anything the site needs to do a much better job at weeding them out. These kind of biases are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. ~2026-14322-93 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well now we should be asking whether the block by The Blade of the Northern Lights is appropriate. The discussion here did not seem to come to a conclusion on that. Personally I think a block is an over reaction. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It is an extreme over-reaction. Bravelake (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In the final analysis, I think I have to agree. I appreciate that there is a desire among some in our community to curate membership in our volunteer pool such that everyone permitted to contribute have all adopted certain uniform beliefs and values, beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject. But, per many of the responses in the now WP:SNOW-closed discussion linked above, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the community feels that is not a feasible prerequisite for editorial privileges, nor even even necessarily a desirable or healthy objective for the project.

More specific to this particular case, what I keep coming back to is the fact that blocks are meant to be WP:PREVENTATIVE, not punitive. Even were action warranted here, I'd question why an indef was necessary when a TBAN or other more tailored sanction would prevent engagement with GENSEX topic matter. If I am honest, even if the community had been given the opportunity to decide this matter, I'm very dubious that it would have found that the one edit summary for which this user was blocked warrants any kind of sanction, especially given the complete lack of effort at engagement with the user before hand. But after mulling over the consequences the last week, I'm certain at this point that I am not comfortable with unilateral indefs for users for no other reason than that they hold divisive beliefs.

At least, not in this particular circumstance. There would certainly be situations where more prolonged, targeted, and/or vexatious descriptions of a user's deprecatory beliefs would trigger for me a presumption that the user in question was per se wp:disruptive. But it would have to be something much more substantial than this user's one edit summary. The brand of nonsense that they appear to believe in is a particularly odious belief to me. And despite going to the mat on this issue, I won't lie: I am doubtful that this user will transform into a longterm net positive even if the block is lifted. But my overall position remains that we are dealing with issues that are broader and vastly more important to the longterm viability of the project than just this one user's freedom to edit over the immediate term. Some principles are worth protecting even when you have to hold your nose while doing it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

"beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject."

I hope these are not required for participation. I do not believe in Wikipedia or its mission, but I did not think that this would preclude me from editing. Pipoin (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems totally appropriate to me. ~2026-92659-0 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This was a bad block. The reason states 'clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia' but the only two edits are a proper application of MOS:QUOTE and , which lacks an edit summary but I'd consider it a good revert as the stable/previous version was better. The Blade of the Northern Lights even reverted the edit with rollback without an edit summary, which goes against WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The user said that LGBTQ+ individuals are pedophiles. You think they deserve to stay? ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of which, due to continued edit-warring at Elly Schlein over her position on Israel , I have filed an RPP request. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• So the editor was editing the sentence of Milei argued there was an "LGBT agenda", saying, "In its most extreme version, gender ideology simply and plainly constitutes child abuse. They're pedophiles" and the editor included the edit summary of Milei is right. Yep, seems like really clear WP:NOTHERE territory. Good block. Kinda gross some of you above are defending it as not that bad. Silverseren^C 22:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

"Kinda gross some of you above are defending it as not that bad." That is clearly, clearly not what is being said here: literally not a single person in this thread (nor the related VP discussion) has made such an assertion, nor anything remotely close to it--and bluntly, if that was your take away from the discussions, I think you need to reread with a finer attention to detail. It is entirely possible for a person to find a belief that another user appears to embrace to be reprehensible, idiotic, lazy, or some combination of all three dialed up to ten, and still believe that the right to participate in this project should not be gated behind the condition of not holding any beliefs that we personally find objectionable. Indeed, I assure you, it is possible to be a direct target of such small-minded, distressing rubbish, and yet still feel that blocking for having the wrong values to be the incorrect response, or just outright infeasible.

More to the point for our purposes here, whatever our personal feelings about this user's views, all blocks have to meet the the requirements of the blocking policy, and much as I am not actually very eager to see what this user would do even if they were unblocked, I still have yet to see someone satisfactorily explain how an immediate indef WP:PREVENTS disruption where a pageblock, tban, or even just a warning/effort at communications and clarifying project norms (none of which the community was able to consider here because of the immediate block) wouldn't have suited. You may find the desire to have the rules apply equally to all--regardless of their (and our) personal views--to be "gross", but I call that a stance based on principle. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that SnowRise's comments should be dismissed as "kinda gross". I don't agree with them in this case, but there is no need to restrict discussion of how far we are with Voltaire's apocryphal quotation ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"). Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Saying something is “kinda gross” is not “restrict[ing] discussion “ ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, the point is that the position SilverScreen described as gross and ascribed to various (if unspecified) participants of this discussion is not in fact one that anybody was supporting. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact, my concern is even narrower than that: I'm perfectly happy with shutting down divisive speech that does nothing to advance the work of the project. If nothing else, the edit summary was a WP:NOTAFORUM violation and had the TA been warned and continued to share their personal views on a controversial issue in a way certain to imflame rather than inform the work of improving the content, then that alone would have been enough disruption for me to better justify a block.

So this is not so much about free speech, or pluralism on this project. It's about the rules being applied properly. If someone is going to get blocked, let alone indeffed, "You are a small-minded git who believes something I consider repugnant" is not, and cannot be, a valid reason in itself. You need to look only to the VP discussion linked above (and its predecessors) to see how absolutely, and by what a huge margin, the community rejects that as a standard, even if you replace the "I" in that statement with "almost all wikipedians". That's clearly what happened here, and why the majority of respondents to this thread have concerns.

Look, do I think even that one vague edit summary suggests the TA is likely holds some bigoted views? More than likely. Do I think if/when they are unblocked they are likely to transform into a productive participant who never runs afoul of project norms again? Highly unlikely. But do I still think that it's important not to take shortcuts in applying the rules equitably to all users, if only to prevent that process devolving into a nightmare of competing ideological interests engaged in flame wars? Very much so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Schrocat has an issue with civility and disputes. I made an edit to Elizabeth Lyon (criminal) over the wording of a single sentence, Schrocat reverted so I tried different wording based on his revert, he reverted that, so I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section, only to be met with incivility and other behavioural issues at the talk page.

[] his initial response at the talk page I have only minor disagreement with and is mostly from a conduct point. His later responses include [simple your wrong type comment] and when asked to expand on why he disagrees with my reasoning he responded with [and referring to my edit as dross], I asked him to respond without snark and was met with [] Don't even try to take some form of moral higher ground ["horseshit"] and ["Dross and nonsense"] You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It also seems slighlty WP:OWNERSHIP-y as he was the one behind the original wording. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever someone is disruptive and ignores STATUS QUO and the standing consensus, and tries to force something on an article which is disagreed with, they soon start throwing out accusations of ownership? See WP:STEWARDSHIP and don't throw around uncivil and unfounded accusations in future. - SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

OP, you need to capitalize the "C" in SchroCat within the template at the start of this thread. "Schrocat" has zero edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry forgot the userlinks template is case sensitive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

His response to the ANI notification was to call it ["tiresome"]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Just use the talk page if anything is reverted. Don't re-revert, which is edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• (ec) Honestly, dropping that one just seems petty. Most editors will feel that edit wars and ANI are tiresome. That's not a statement about you; that's a statement about the process. While I cannot endorse the vulgar language, I'm not seeing this as reaching the personal attack level. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of the diffs are from the talk page. I'm trying to discuss but SchroCat is refusing to discuss beyond handwaving to a consensus by silence and snark. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See WP:CAREFUL (not commenting on anything else) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how that has to do with anything, the reverting of my edits is not a problem Schrocat's behaviour at the talk page is. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101:: I tried a third wording and opened a talk page section. Ah; so edit-warred your preferred version in breach of WP:FAOWN (a policy, you know), and then opened the talk page discussion you shoud have opened after you were reverted the first time (per WP:ONUS, also policy)? Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempted rewording upon an initial objection is allowed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair recollection of the events:

Going by timestamps, we have:

• 2026-03-07T15:06:56 LavaLizard makes an edit, complete with edit summary, changing one word
• 2026-03-07T15:09:18 Schrocat reverts, with an edit summary
• 2026-03-07T15:57:39 LavaLizard makes a completely different edit, with an edit summary, trying to address both their concerns and Schrocat's
• 2026-03-07T16:04:46 Schrocatreverts, instructing LavaLizard to discuss their edits on the talkpage
• 2026-03-07T16:30:50 LavaLizard starts the talkpage discussion, saying they found thw wording ambigious
• And, a few minutes later, 2026-03-07T16:32:08 comes up with yet a third wording, still trying to address both editor's concerns.
• 2026-03-07T16:38:11 Schrocat reverts LavaLizard's edit yet again, saying Per BRD and STATUSQUO, stop edit warring and let the discussion run its course
• Then, a few minutes later (2026-03-07T16:40:34), goes to the talkpage and opens with FFS, will you stop edit warring on this

I detailed the futher conversation in a lower post; it doesn't get any better. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

TO prevent the appearance of bludgeoning, I will only respond here if people have any questions or want a response to anything. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

While I'm unimpressed by the edit warring, it takes two people to edit war - if I tried to discuss something on a talkpage, only to be met with a much more senior editor saying things like:

Your logic is flawed and the change you made even worse

You've now introduced OR into a featured article. Bravo. Feeling good about yourself?

It's a second-rate approach and second rate behaviour

This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

You've managed to take the article backwards, even it is only a small step. Excellent work

Well, I can see why this was escalgted to AN/I - with respect to @Phil Bridger and @Crisco 1492, this is absolutely a conduct issue at this point.

Looking more broadly:

Utter horseshit. This has been through two review processes which did a far better job than your second rate nonsense

Is this really a proportionate response to somebody saying, calmly on the talkpage, that they found the wording "in the years following her death" ambiguous or misleading? This is very clearly WP:OWN-ership behaviour, something Scrhocat which Scrocat has an issue with. During their most recent edit warring block - while also calling another editor second rate and defending both their edit warring and the personal attacks by claiming that they were just following... WP:FAOWN.

I'm also struck by the fact that Schrocat is calling the accusation of OWNERSHIP behaviour uncivil, while maintaining that they have a right to call other editors and their contributions second rate. I hope AN/I doesn't lose sight of that. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

CC @ScottishFinnishRadish, who specifically warned Schrocat the other month about calling other editors second rate. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Try reading my comments please: I have not called anyone second rate. I have described wording, approach etc as second rate, but have not called him second rate. Let's not let the desire to get someone blocked veer into 'misreading' what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to defend your behavior as being acceptable and content-focused while simultaneously assigning motive to someone else's behavior is digging deeper not climbing up. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have not claimed anything of the sort. I was correcting a misrepresentation of what I did say. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And how else do you think the desire to get someone blocked ought to be interpreted? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Schrocat, I understand this is a bit stressful (and I certainly don't want to see you blocked), and that doesn't always help with parsing text, but how do you describe saying:

As long as you or for the first revert against second-rate shitty edits going for you!) Sometimes I wonder what the point is of producing quality work when second rate editors can game the system and admins back up such shitty approaches. Once upon a time Admins had an eye on the quality of content, not a mindless focus kn second rate dross from second-rate editors who have no clue on how to discuss their third rate suggestions

as anything but calling other editors second-rate? And I note the "I didn't call you stupid! I said your behaviour was stupid!" defense hadn't yet materialized when you were contemporaneously called out for that; you said

Even when they are playing games, being disruptive and acting in a second-rate manner on content the community has already deemed at an appropriate standard? Have you actually looked into how they wish to downgrade community-graded material? How would you wish me to refer to such editors that are not of sufficient standard? I can replace “second rate” with several other terms, if you want to whitewash people of insufficient ability, but I’m struggling to think of what wording you may think appropriate

GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I certainly don't want to see you blocked is dissonant to pinging an admin who specifically warned Schrocat the other month.

Still, at least you've avoided accusing editors of being "summoned from an external website" to this discussion—and being warned against doing so—albeit with a simlar degree of good faith. Sigh. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi If you'd like to discuss my editing on a completely separate issue, my talkpage is open - or you can start a separate thread? Just to clarify, the reason I pinged SFR is because I was relying on words he said - I can't promise I'm perfect at this, but, when relying on the words of others, I do like to touch base with them to make sure I've interpreted them correctly. That's polite, no? I certainly don't expect him to block - my notification to him, I think, precludes that as a possible outcome, even taking into account that I don't think he's edited much this year.

Again, I don't want to see Schrocat blocked; I want their behavior to stop. Ideally, they'll do that themselves. That's what I want. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

FYI, your editing in this thread is not editing on a completely separate issue. But thanks for clarifying that you want to knock a wall down even as you build it up. Best, —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No, but my editing in a previous AN/I thread or elsewhere on the site, is.

I know you've had opinions on admins blocking Schrocat, an editor you have collaborated across a wide variety of areas with extensively in the past - again, during the most recent block, said that For the record, WP:FAOWN is as much policy as WP:3RR, while pinging the blocking admin, whilst ending discussion about the actual issue on the article talkpage. . So, given that, and given that I think this conversation is veering towards distracting, I don't have much more to say on the matter but this: have you considered taking a step back and letting some fresh eyes have a look at the underlying behavioral issue? I think that might be beneficial for all parties. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling the citing of a policy page "utter horseshit" when the quoting is to rebut perceived selective quoting of it is something I cannot overlook. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If blocks are said to be preventive and not punitive, and civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, how does the community deal with an editor who has not learned from 11 short blocks for edit-warring and incivility? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Trout Two competent and active editors with completely different collaborative styles become random assigned to the same loosely-defined work group. Hilarity ensues. Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this problem is confined to this dispute; for example, after the discussion was started, Schrocat has begun to edit war on a completely different article with a completely different editor, while in the same breath accusing the other editor of edit warring - two reverts in an hour, , with the second revert's edit summary being, not an actual summary of Schrocat's edits or reasoning, as you might expect an edit summary to me PLease don't edit war. If you want to use the talk page to discuss the matter, I think that would be a better course of action. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 19:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Good point; the editor in question alternates between poorly-thought out brash comments, and lengthy precise encyclopæd'ing. Here's remembering the fallen and the lost collaborators, absent through similar circumstances. Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for pinging me, GreenLipstickLesbian. I rarely comment on ANI, and hesitated commenting here because I don't believe I've ever interacted with SchroCat before, at least not negatively. It's purely coincidental that I made a minor copyedit to Noel Coward while this thread was open, but, as you note, SchroCat's response is concerning, especially if it does represent an ongoing pattern. SchroCat's first reversion of my copyedit with their edit summary "Unsure why that was deleted" seemed fair enough. So I put it back with an detailed explanation in my edit summary. That's when things took a turn. SchroCat then accused me in their summary of edit-warring, which is both a serious and ridiculous accusation, and they requested a talk page discussion, which is a reasonable request if made in good faith. So I started a discussion and was ghosted by SchroCat for 3 days, during which time they were active. I leave it to others to determine if this is a pattern, and, if so, what a solution might be. Station1 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:FAOWN says the following: Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership (emphasis added). This is a polite way of acknowledging that Featured Articles do have owners (contra WP:OWN) and don't become and remain FAs without one. That said, I don't see that WP:FAOWN is a license to abuse other editors. It's well-attested that SchroCat is often rude to other editors. That there are editors he is not rude to makes it worse, frankly: he's capable of working collaboratively when it suits him. Nothing's changed in years. I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before. Mackensen (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Mackensen wrote: I understand why some folks think SchroCat shouldn't face consequences for treating others badly and I don't agree with them and I've said so before.. There is an essay, written in 2011, with a title that is descriptive but not accurate, Unblockables. The title is not accurate because it is about editors who are repeatedly blocked, but the blocks either are short or are undone shortly. They are blocked, but they don't stay blocked. As the essay explains, these editors have fan clubs, including administrators who will unblock them. SchroCat is one of these editors who has a fan club. One consequence of the policy that blocks are preventive rather than punitive is that it makes it nearly impossible to deal with editors who are habitually uncivil but have fan clubs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this seems remarkably similar to my runins with SC last year described in my comments at the end of the last ANI thread about them, though the thread as a whole is rather WP:TLDR. Graham87 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the talk page comments quoted earlier sound like performance art of someone satirizing an uncivil editor on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• So where do we go from here? It seems pretty clear their behavior is unacceptable and past sanctions have, clearly, done nothing to help them improve as an editor. Would a permanent 1RR and something along the lines of quit personalizing disputes be worth while? PackMecEng (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd support a 1RR restriction at this point. This has been a recurring behavioral problem for a long time and SchroCat will not change his behavior on his own. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would also support a 1RR. I don't think "quit personalizing disputes" is useful; you've have endless arguments about whether something was a personal attack or fair comment. 1RR is clearer and has less scope for good-faith disagreement. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR is the answer, because when disputes arise, it is usually because SchroCat has spent a long time working on an article, while another user comes along and makes changes that make the article worse (or at least do from SchroCat's POV) and he's fed up of having to explain the issues to newcomers again and again, so gives up with an incivil remark. So the reverting itself is in good faith, and not the actual issue. Instead, I think we need to look at some sort of civility probation. As a starting point, consider Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Infobox probation (II) - although the dispute here is not to do with infoboxes. So I would suggest something like:

• SchroCat is placed on probation. He may be blocked from any page (including, but not restricted to, articles and talk pages) for any length of time by any uninvolved administrator if his conduct is considered disruptive or incivil. These blocks may not be overturned without consensus of the community.

As an aside, I would probably never take such action myself, as I have worked closely with SchroCat on several articles and hence consider myself WP:INVOLVED with regards to taking action. I'm simply suggesting this as a starting point to get the thread closed out successfully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I dunno, there is plenty of editwarring that this would not address. Plus I think Mackensen makes a good point about what is incivility and how do we enforce it. I dont think saying this time we are serious and just stating existing policy will make a difference. From what I can tell the only difference between existing policy that everyone has to conform to and this restriction is how it can be overturned. PackMecEng (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I share these concerns, but there's not going to be a perfect remedy. For the purposes of actually finding consensus to do something this time, I support both Ritchie's proposal and a 1RR, while acknowledging that if a new editor had engaged in the same behavior SchroCat has been reported for goodness-knows-how-many times already they would've been blocked long ago. Toadspike [Talk] 00:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Pachu Kannan (talk · contribs) has been disruptively adding unrelated content to Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) and then removing it repeatedly in rapid momentum. I would not be submitting this if this is a one-off and nor am I seeking action for WP:UNDUE, but repeatedly adding and reverting themselves before scrutiny can be done by other editors and acting like someone conducting a drive-by shooting has been a persistent behavior of them over a few months and despite promising to hold off after being called out on Talk:Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present)#Rapid insertions proceeded to repeat the same behavior over and over again. While I do not see WP:NOTHERE yet and whether it is too late to take action on grounds of gaming, my guess is that they are treating this article as an extension of their Sandbox, if not outright trolling given the aforementioned recidivism. For example:

For March 10 alone, they have reverted themselves for at least 18 times and counting, including:

The list goes on and on through the revision history, including 30 reverts on March 8 alone. Some sort of brake (not break) or bump may be necessary for them to slow down, as no warning seems to get through to them, and they even tried to wipe the warning off in the mistaken belief that they can do it the same way they can to user talk pages. Borgenland (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Borgenland, I am not WP:GAMING the system. I agree that I sometimes used this article as my sandbox (but all the content added and removed by me were not because of this reason), but I am ready to stop it. Can administrators give me one more chance for stopping my disruptve behavior before at least temporarily blocking my account or at least enforcing a temporary topic ban against my account as I think I also attempted to make some good faith contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2021. But feel free to give other due punishments as I continued my some edits which are not an improvement to this encyclopedia after Borgenland's warning, which I replied and later attempted to remove from the talk page along with another talk page discussion. Pachu Kannan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

How a contributor with 41,000+ edits could possibly think that using an article as 'a sandbox' was ever appropriate, I have no idea. This looks to me like a WP:CIR issue, and unless we get (a) a clear, unambiguous and rational explanation as to why Pachu Kannan was doing this, and (b) a clear and unambiguous promise not to do it again, I would have to suggest that an indefinite block would seem appropriate. This seems to have been going on for two months on the Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) article, And if it isn't being done to boost their edit count (which is obviously disruptive), I can't think of any plausible alternative explanation at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've pblocked from Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) and Timeline of the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (27 November 2024 – present) where they have been doing the same thing (if not quite as extensively) until we get a good explanation for how an editor who's been XC since April 2021 thought this was a good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

On their talk page they (finally, after several rounds of simply saying "I won't do it again") said they did this because they "forgot about my personal sandbox". Given the (repeated) pledges to never do it again, and said if they repeat it on any articles to block them fully, I've lifted the pblock, but folks should keep an eye on things. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Andrew is a long-time contributor at WP:ITN/C. Like many editors on this project, he has issues with the quantity of items and balance of topics that ITN promotes to the Main Page. But rather than working collaboratively for effective improvement, Andrew insists upon engaging in WP:DEADHORSE arguments on matters of settled consensus such as the relevance of pageviews , disrupting routine nominations with lengthy tangents , clogging the page with duplicative and SNOWBALL nominations , and offering vague criticisms with full knowledge of the efforts and challenges inherent to addressing them. Many editors have attempted to address this with him directly to no avail. We are spending far too much time responding to the same arguments from him, and it is becoming a distraction for the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 123#Andrew and ITN from a couple or three months ago. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • This nomination of a contract dispute to ITN, complete with sarcastic comments about another editor's unsuccessful good faith nomination and piping the United States Department of Defense to the US Department of War was quite disruptive. Half of the rationale for this nomination (SNOW-closed) featured strange polemical comments about how "ironic" it is for France, Spain and the Netherlands to have the same goals and interests as Britain. Whether any of this is sanction-worthy, I don't know. AusLondonder (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This thread is long overdue, and I thank GreatCeasarsGhost for going ahead and starting this discussion.

One of Andrew's most common talking points, and one that he has been scolded for before, is Pageviews. The previous ANI thread had the sticking point of whether or not the Pageviews argument actually had merit. I have, however, done some thinking and come up with a few reasons why this isn't valid. Firstly, Pageviews reflect only what pages our readers are going to, not how important things are in the grand scene of the world. As an example, ChatGPT consistently features in the top-read pages, but that doesn't mean we should be posting an item about ChatGPT each week. Next, the Pageviews argument leaves out the fact that our ITN criteria does not work based on popularity, but impact and significance. Many elections in WP:ITN/R do not receive massive amount of page views but nonetheless are significant enough to post. Thirdly, WP:ITNPURPOSE states that one of ITN's purposes is to "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Pageviews only indicates what's making waves at the moment, and what is popular. This does not indicate significance.

Some of Andrew's most problematic nominations were of Twitter revealing locations ("X marks the spot") and, more recently, the aforementioned Claude nom ("Claude or clawed?"). The first nomination, POINTiness aside, aspersed that editors at ITN had a "geopolitical agenda". He also made vague threats adjacent to WP:OUTING, suggesting that "Perhaps we should use flag icons to show where we're coming from...". It is worth noting that this nomination was WP:SNOW-closed in just 11 minutes. The Anthropic nom is just as concerning. Andrew piped "US Department of War" out of United States Department of Defense, using the Trump administration's new unofficial "renaming" of the DOD that was done for political reasons. Aside from this, no-one with his tenure at ITN would think that a mere contract dispute, as AusLondoner said above, caused by a Trump temper tantrum, would be worth posting.

I do however believe that Andrew is acting mostly in good faith, and that he is a valuable contributor to the project. Unfortunately, his behaviour at ITN has gone on to such lengths that it is becoming disruptive and wasting valuable time. Therefore, I support no more than a 1 year TBAN from ITN-related pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

He's an active issue-causer at ITN, from what I can see. I'm not someone who uses ITN though. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As someone who does use ITN frequently, yes, the vast majority of interactions I have with him are non-productive. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, dissent is not disloyalty. If anything, challenging the arbitrary and dysfunctional "rules" in the ITN walled garden makes him one of the few valuable editors there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Challenging consensus is encouraged, but perpetuating disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive is not. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Then perhaps ITN should actually get "community consensus" for anything it does. The most recent sitewide RfC on the matter found there was no consensus on whether ITN should even exist. I'd sooner support WP:OWN sanctions on many of the editors active there, including a few of the admins. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Worth also mentioning that Andrew Davidson is still topic-banned from deletion activities, and has been since 2021. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

So, that's something from 5 years ago, right? Why is that especially worth mentioning? Note that it was the 20th anniversary of my start on Wikipedia recently. Perhaps that 20 years of service may be worth mentioning too? In that time, there has been much water under the bridge and some of it may have been troubled but I am not alone in that respect, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Of note that the generally held opinion on the site seems to be WP:NOELDERS. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with WP:NVC but it's the same idea. But you should try experiencing how it works at ITN where the "regulars" say things like

It should be reiterated that one reason why ITN is mostly just the regulars is because our unreadable tome of unwritten rules causes newcomers to decide they don't want to come back here when they have to deal with the unpleasant experience of being rejected even when, at least from their perspective, they did everything right.
But we regulars don't know "the ins and outs of what is appropriate" either because our idea of what is and isn't appropriate is always changing and is never consistent. This idea that a select few really know how it works is illustrative of one of the worst aspects of ITN...

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• TBAN? I don't know. A warning certainly so. An editor here for more than 20 years should get the hint and know when they are being disruptive at any topic area on enwiki. Dissent is fine, disruption is not. Treating ITN as a soapbox for its reformation by making pointy nominations every now and then certainly not as well. Gotitbro (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro You'd think the several prior times this has been brought to ANI + his TBAN from deletion-related discussions would be enough of a warning to change the way he does things, and yet we're still here. Most of the behaviors that got him TBANned from deletion discussions just migrated over to ITN. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not familiar with the AfD ban, so cannot comment. Perhaps a WP:ROPE can be extended here with the condition that Andrew limits the disruption at ITN (i.e. pointy noms, rambling rants against ITN working etc.), barring which sanctions may follow. Though if it is still refusal to acknowledge the problematic behaviour even now, a rope would also be pointless. Gotitbro (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support 1-year TBAN from ITN and all related areas as proposed by Chorchapu. My observation is that Andrew treats ITN as a game he is trying to win. The snarky misleading headlines, the attacks on other users, and the use of recognition credits to keep score all point to this. The AfD ban is relevant because there, Andrew was obssessively using Google hits as a metric of notability, against repeated advice that to do so was misleading and not part of policy. It's a very close parallel to his focus on page impressions as a measure of whether a page is in the news. I do not believe that our own page impression statistics are a fit source for anything beyond themselves. Here is another recent ITN nomination in which Andrew's conduct was a big distraction - neither the film nor the novel Wuthering Heights have anything to do with the 2026 Berlin International Film Festival. It was pure whataboutery. And when another user correctly folded the tangential discussion up, Andrew came back and unfolded it. It just looks like attention-seeking, to be honest. Wikipedia is not a game we can win; it is a service we provide. The writer should not become the story, and for a long time now, Andrew has acting like someone who is determined to be the story. I do not need contribution credits, or barnstars, or anything like that, for my participation here or anywhere on Wikipedia, and I am tired of everyone's time being wasted by Andrew's idiosyncratic personal quest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Posting unpopular but good faith nominations should not merit sanctions. I'd reconsider if there was evidence of actual incivility, personal attacks, etc. Jessintime (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Many of his nominations appear not to have been in good faith. See the Twitter and Claude noms in my comment - POINTiness abounds. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Claude story was running for days and I listed many sources (Al Jazeera, BBC, The Conversation, DW, FT, NYT, Politico, Reuters, Telegraph, Time, Times of India). The Twitter/X story was perhaps more fleeting but the sources seemed quite respectable at the time (ABC, BBC, CNN, France 24, Guardian). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  What was the crack about Kerala at the end of the Claude story about? Sesquilinear (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  A little bit prior, someone made a nomination for the Indian state of Kerala renaming to Keralam. Here is a link to the nomination. Even though it was WP:SNOW-closed, it was importantly nominated sincerely and without the out-of-pocket jabs found in the Claude nom. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Honestly, I kind of want Andrew himself to explain that one in his own words. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  They were two adjacent nominations and so it seemed natural to compare them. My contribution to the Kerala(m) nomination was to point to some previous nominations as precedents, such as the renaming of Denali/Mount McKinley. I didn't post a !vote because the consensus already seemed clear; the Kerala nomination didn't get a single support. So my focus there was to be informative rather than opinionated.

  I nominated the following item about Claude because this seemed to be a comparatively big deal. The key issue was that Anthropic were trying to maintain red lines in the use of AI, preventing its use to control lethal autonomous weapons. To understand why this is important, see coverage such as this, the question is whether the next killer app from AI vendors will be lethal autonomous weapons systems. This seems significant to me as I'm familiar with the issue, having written the article Slaughterbots years ago. That was set in the near-future and now that future is happening with drone-dominated battlefields in the Ukraine war and AI use in the operations in Venezuela and Iran.

  So, my contributions were entirely good faith and I still think that such AI stories are significant. If people don't like the way I put it then they should understand that putting a nomination together requires some boldness in the choice of words -- you have to pull together the sources and our corresponding article(s), compose a suitably pithy blurb to summarise them and then make some introductory comments as to why this should be posted. When you start such a discussion about a novel topic, you often can't tell how it will go and naturally some nominations go better or worse than others. The point of the discussion is to find out what will fly.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  "boldness in choice of words" is a rather large generosity regarding piping the US DOD to the Trump-branded Dept. of War or writing an remarkably POV blurb (even very left-leaning outlets like Vox did not phrase it so bluntly). Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  Such blurbs are first draft suggestions off the top of my head. The ITN process provides for alternate blurbs and so people can and do suggest better alternatives. The admins that then post the blurbs make changes too and they continue to tweak the wording after it reaches the main page. There's then a further stage of oversight at WP:ERRORS so there are plenty of safeguards. See the recent paralympics, for an extensive discussion, for example. This demonstrates the difficulty of getting things right first time. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  This case is more than just an alternate but suboptimal proposal; it's getting well into the realm of POINTiness. Making a remotely postable blurb is the very bare minimum for "getting things right the first time". If the world was ending and a blurb was proposed like that it would never be acceptable, significant or not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Weak support 1-year topic ban from ITN, oppose indef topic ban from ITN They have been acting in good faith, but ITN got to them and now they have done WP:POINTy edits. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)~2026-68406-1 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)^{Sockstrike, see edsum. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)}
• Oppose any sanction. Frankly, I suspect that much of the time WP:ITNC gets the contributors it deserves (which, occasionally, mea maxma culpa, includes me). As WP:ITN itself notes, ITN's own methodology is both controversial and subjective, so although it attempts to have a synthesized set of ground rules, they're not really worth the paper they're printed on: when push comes to shove, at ITN/C when a "controversial" nomination is made, its only treatment is "subjective"—per the project's own description—and that is almost guaranteed to cause friction. The suggestion that their nominations are somewhow low grade is untenable; the requirements for inclusion at ITN are so low that only a minority of candidates are dismissed out of hand. So disputes such as this are not merely endemic, they're systematic, baked into the process. It would be nice if it wasn't like this; it would be nice if that could change. But that's something for the ITN regulars to sort out (unless they can't, then at some point I guess the wider community will have to do it instead). Davidson's views might be consistentlty upopular but they're not counter to policy or guideline, rather, they meet with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This response is sometimes described as effectvely just custom and practice. But by its nature custom and practice can change. It's when one decides one doesn't want custom and practice to change that one codifies it. The lack of codification suggests, after all, that this is the process ITN really wants. Evicting Davidson from this area will only give the walled garden that is ITN an even higher wall. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a ITN-specific problem. I found 10 similar threads over the past 10 years:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive295#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew Davidson disruptive editing in AfD
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364#Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1082#Andrew Davidson's conduct at VPR – topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#ARS Proposal #3: Topic ban or other restrictions for Andrew Davidson
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Andrew Davidson and ITNC
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Andrew Davidson and RFAs: time for a topic ban?
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal: Require Andrew Davidson to provide a rationale with each de-PROD

As noted above, he's already got a TBAN from deletions. People are also complaining about his behavior at VPR, RFA, and DYK (that one was me). How many times does somebody need to get dragged to the drama boards before we say they've had enough warnings and WP:ROPE (as suggested above) and we admit somebody is more trouble than they're worth? As people have noted, his complaints are not without merit, but he seems to be unable to express them in a way which is constructive and WP:Being right isn't enough. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I had to look at several of these threads to recall what they were about. And even now I don't really understand issues like the VPR complaint, for example, where I have no particular agenda or regular habits and just treat each case on its merits when it shows up somewhere like WP:CENT. Most of these issues were dismissed without action because they were a misunderstanding or over-reaction. I generally get on fine with places like DYK, RFA and VPR now and this shows that the outcomes in those cases was the right one. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what WP:VPR was so I checked that out – it turned out to be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The complaint was that I always oppose the proposals. It was not sustained because it seemed that most people generally agreed with my views on those proposals. Looking at the history since, it didn't take me long to find a counter-example in which I supported the proposal: Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. That's a technical issue which has just about nothing to with ITN and my position was vindicated.

So why is this irrelevant issue from four years ago being dragged in here? Obviously this is mud-slinging, because as Piotrus explains well: mud sticks! ...the longer somebody has been with the project, the more he has contributed, the easier he is to attack, by dragging his past mistakes. Worse, one does not need to have done real mistakes to be a victim here. Often, what is framed as his past mistakes might have not been declared as such by a consensus: it's enough that one editor has called his action a mistake... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• FactArchivist (talk · contribs)
• Guy Masterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While cleaning up Guy Masterson, I came across this edit that removed tags without comment or any attempt to address the article other than stating on the talk page that the article is fine now.. FactArchivist has made no other edits to the article.

FactArchivist has responded to notices on their talk page and the article talk page about the situation, saying I made several improvements to the article and removed only these issues from the article as Ive been told to do.

When asked what improvements they made, and with what accounts, FactArchivist responded, I cant give details about something that happened 1.5 months ago, I simply do not remember. But the issue seems also solved so there is no need to talk about it.

Note that during the previous 1.5 months, the article was vandalized by SPA account Shekharactor (talk · contribs), who was blocked for doing so.

The other editors that edited during this time consist almost entirely of accounts created during this time period (or a few months before), with ArthurPlummer (talk · contribs) standing out as being blocked for sockpuppetry.

This situation reminds me of WP:LTA/OM-type problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

could be user:Jewelterie but there's nothing more than really coincidence that I can see. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this to COIN with further information if the use of multiple accounts isn't of concern to anyone else. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-96766-3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

I am fairly certain that the activity of Special:Contributions/~2026-96766-3 represents block evasion by Special:Contributions/47.223.51.77 who was also blocked last year as Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:7500:AB1:0:0:0:0/64. The main problem is WP:CIR; the person persistently copyedits pages with terrible English grammar and poor wiki markup. They visited the Sour (album) page twice, once a few days ago and once back in June 2025, with nearly identical results.

Recent examples of bad grammar include:

• "in which both of whom had contributed to the musical direction of the mixtape that were particularly praised."
• "from which was being held in her home country of Chile"

What can we do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

"in which both of whom had contributed to the musical direction of the mixtape that were particularly praised." is correct there if I'm not missing something. They listed the people first. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something - several things in fact! Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think more editors should write like David Foster Wallace with 50+ word sentences and semicolons instead of full stops.^[Humor] ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I entirely missed that they said were instead of was. Sorry. Honest mistake, I swear. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 15:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I belive, looking at the edit, it's like a bad English synthesis. Changed from "while production was handled by 40 and Boi-1da—whose contributions to the musical direction of the mixtape were particularly praised" to "whereas while its production on the record was handled by 40 and Boi-1da, in which both of whom had contributed to the musical direction of the mixtape that were particularly praised." (emphasis all my own to show changes). 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 19:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't guess what their native language might be, since all the IPs geolocate to Texas, mostly in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. It is probably a language with very different verb conjugation and dependent clause rules than English, since most of the errors are in verb tenses and auxiliary verbs; if so, their primary language is overwhelmingly likely to be Spanish. Regardless of language, if they are not an internet troll, I'd ask them to study and practice verb conjugation (much simpler than most langauges!) and joining of dependent clauses in English. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I originally read the title of this section as a personal attack, but then saw that it is ambiguous. By "crappy copyediting person" did you mean "crappy person who copyedits" (personal attack) or "person who does crappy copyedits" (not)? It may be better to change the title to something that is not ambiguous. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A good headline is eye-catching. The skill of the newspaper editor was once considered a virtue.

Regarding the clear block evasion, we ought to set an IP6 rangeblock and block the TAs. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Since when isn't it a virtue anymore? This just in: Binksternet hates all newspaper editors. More at eight.

(This is a joke.) (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 12:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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

This may belong at WP:XRV as it involves an admin, but I see no reason that an admin should be exempt from the same rules that apply to the rest of us....

On multiple occasions (Special:Diff/1334379449, Special:Diff/1340526221) this admin has been reminded of the need to use WP:PREVIEW as their edits have broken pages and thrown them into error categories. Deor has ignored these messages. I also left a custom written message here reminding them that communication is required, something I should NOT have to tell an admin.

Once again with this edit this admin has broken a page and thrown it into an error category by not bothering to WP:PREVIEW their edits.

We ALL make mistakes, but this is an admin who should be held to a higher standard and should understand the need to communicate with other users. I have personally seen multiple editors blocked from the article namespace for this EXACT pattern of behavior (repeatedly inserting unknown parameters, being warned about it, ignoring those warnings and refusing to WP:ENGAGE). I find it rather disturbing that an editor who has been an admin for over a decade should be exempt from the same actions... I request admin intervention and review of this matter. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I made two mistakes in the last two months. (I'm sure that I've made more than that, but I usually fix them myself; note the number of "oops" edit summaries in my contributions.) Neither of the two warnings that Zackmann linked above requested a response, and I didn't think that either required one other than noting it. I must admit that I overlooked the "custom written message", probably because in January Zackmann had given me two identical warnings in the same minute, and I assumed that the February warnings, also posted in the same minute, were a similar case. In any event, I apologize for ignoring Zackmann's request for a response—though I think that their suggestion that this matter is worthy of WP:XRV is a bit over the top.

With regard to "disruptive edits" and error categories, the only maintenance category I actively monitor is Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, and I frequently see errors (such as adding an infobox with coordinates included but forgetting to delete a {{coord}} template elsewhere in the article, which results in a "multiple title coordinates" error). Only when a user makes the same error repeatedly—say, four or more times in a row—do I choose to caution them on their talk page. Deor (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This all seems like a huge overreaction to me. The first two instances you warned them about, they simply added coordinates into an erroneous empty field placed by someone else. It isn't their fault for assuming good faith that that field would work. The third edit is a genuine typo, yes, but they've added coordinates for 2000+ articles this year while apparently making a single mistake, and no editor, admin or otherwise, deserves to have scary templates placed on their talk page or dragged to ANI for that.

And yes, I have seen people blocked over this too, but most of them have compounding problems that led to their blocks, such as adding unsourced dates of birth to BLPs, for example. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You give me too much credit. In the first case, |coor= used to be a valid field in some infoboxes, but I should have noticed that the coordinates I added didn't actually display in the article. In the second case, I should have replaced |latd= with |coordinates= (and deleted the other lat and long fields), but I simply forgot to. Deor (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close, Deor has apologized for not responding to Zackmann08 which is the only real potential issue here, but not one for this board. We're all human and make errors, the vast majority of which Deor has corrected without prompting. There is no need for ANI/XRV action. Star Mississippi 14:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  It is disappointing to me that it took an ANI for an admin to remember that communication is required. Yes we all make errors (I should certainly know that as I make them often), but when alerted to such errors, they should be addressed, not ignored and made repeatedly. I hope that Deor will remember to WP:PREVIEW moving forward and to actually respond to queries on their talk page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  You did not leave any queries on their talk page... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Haziran11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Haziran11 was warned about LLM-generated content in December and again in February. The article Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war, which they created on March 9, has now been endorsed for WP:G15 speedy deletion by several editors at AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A number of their other recent edits have what are either LLM issues or not understanding the sources issues (reverted here and here . Its also been three days and they have not commented on the AFD despite being active elsewhere.©Geni (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder. I understand that the article is deleted, I respect the result of the discussion. I planned to write an article that includes credible sources about the topic and finish it later, but I see that the article in its current form did not meet Wikipedia’s standards.

I take the reminders about the text created by LLMs very seriously. From now on, I'll be more careful to make sure my edits are clearly supported by reliable sources and accurately reflect them.

I appreciate everyone for their feedback and will be more careful about the source in my future edits. Haziran11 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Haziran11 did you use an AI/LLM/chatbot to generate your reply here? Blue Sonnet (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No. I wrote that reply myself.Haziran11 (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• OFFS, obviously that's AI. Indef for using AI to promise to stop using AI, then lying about it. Why do we waste our time coddling incompetent liars? AI must be destroyed. EEng 09:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  What is your argument for saying this?Haziran11 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Haziran11: because it reads like one, and ZeroGPT concurs, giving it 100% likelihood of being AI-generated. Which is particularly concerning, given that's kind of the reason for this discussion in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  So are we going to engage in yet another waste-of-electrons exercise in futility by engaging this person further as they continue lying? Please, someone just block right now. EEng 10:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Is the use or assistance of AI generally and unconditionally prohibited on Wikipedia? Haziran11 (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Or can it be used within the rules? Haziran11 (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't remember the rules on that. What I do know is that AI liars are AI liars, and you're an AI liar. Go lie somwewhere else. Productive editors don't want your kind wasting their time, which is what you're doing right now. EEng 12:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  LLMs aren't explicitly against the rules. There is no total ban. However, adding hallucinated text and text unsupported by references is considered disruptive. Judging from the number of warnings on your talk page and links provided above, I would say you fall into that area. You are required to verify any information you post regardless of LLM usage, and you haven't been doing so. • Quinn (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  LLM use is not banned outright. However, as Quinn said, LLMs have real problems producing content that complies with Wikipedia's core policies, like verifiability. You are responsible for every edit you make. See Wikipedia:Large language models for an overview of the relevant policies. If you feel that you need to use an LLM to contribute here then you probably shouldn't contribute here. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I may have used AI occasionally to help improve the wording of texts, correct spelling errors, and make the writing smoother. My understanding is that this kind of assistance does not in itself violate Wikipedia policies.

  Also, not all of my contributions to Wikipedia can reasonably be questioned on the basis that I used AI. According to Wikipedia guidance, the real concern with AI is when it leads to policy violations or the creation of inaccurate or misleading content.

  If there were one or two mistakes in my edits, I acknowledge that this can happen, but occasional errors should not by themselves be considered sufficient grounds for blocking an account. I would appreciate it if the situation could be reviewed more carefully and based on the actual content and sources used in my edits. Haziran11 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  More AI-written bullshit. EEng 18:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I shall point this out again, fully aware that nobody is listening: if you ask an LLM to defend your use of an AI to write an article (or your essay or your dissertation – ask me how I know this), 100% of the time it will tell you to say "I only used AI to improve my English/correct spelling errors/check my writing" in some combination. Anybody who says words to that effect, especially after they have previously denied LLM usage, is lying directly to your face. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, their LLM is lying to your face for them.

  To lighten the mood, here's a little anecdote: As some may know to their dismay, I have a minor role in shaping young minds at a small but respected liberal arts college. So imagine my shock when, in the run-up to a recent semester, one student petitioned for an exception to the course prerequisites:

  As a graduating senior, this course is incredibly important for completing my concentration requirements and aligning with my academic goals. It will not only enhance my understanding of computer science but also serve as a capstone to my academic journey, bridging the theoretical and practical knowledge I’ve gained throughout my time at [University Name].

  To be clear: "my time at [University Name]" is the original text as the student submitted it (and note the curly apostrophe near the end of the quote). This is when I first became aware that the contagion had spread to [University Name]. (In the unlikely event this particular student somehow stumbles on this post, I rush to add that we overlooked this faux pas, and they proved a valuable addition to the class.) EEng 21:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia guidance, the real concern with AI is when it leads to policy violations or the creation of inaccurate or misleading content.

  You used AI and it caused policy violations and the creation of inaccurate content, therefore there can be sufficient grounds for blocking in this situation. Besides, you have fabricated quotes or have cited an article that does not agree with the text you added, so even if you have not used AI, those were still violations of the policy for verifiability. ~2026-68406-1 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Please reply in your own words and comment on the actual issues that have been raised, rather than suggesting there may be a hypothetical "one or two". CMD (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  So (in my earlier words) engage in yet another waste-of-electrons exercise in futility by engaging this person further as they continue lying it is, I guess. EEng 14:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  In Attacks on Iranian schools during the 2026 war, which you created, many quotes are plainly not supported by the sources (e.g. "students are protected under international humanitarian law in a place dedicated to education and that 'attacks on educational facilities endanger students and teachers and undermine the right to education." cited to and ) or changed the words inside the quotation ("grave violation" changing to "gross violation" cited to , or "must not become another horrific incident that slips out of the headlines and is no longer a priority. There must be accountability." cited to , which was present in two near-duplicated sections).

  This is just from spot-checking one article, but looking at other recent edits, we see the same pattern of inaccurate quotes ("Rising oil prices weigh on economic growth and push up inflation" cited to in Special:Diff/1342329177) and issues with paraphrasing veering into the absurd ("Gasoline prices in the US rose 7.5% to $3.20 per gallon. Gasoline prices rose above $4 per gallon, the highest since late 2023." in the same edit, when the source for the first was referring to the average gasoline price and the second to diesel specifically). In general, your edits are more or less closely paraphrasing news outlets without much attention to the meaning of the words, which is not a constructive way to edit with LLMs.

  "Mistakes can happen" doesn't really work when you're changing the words in quotes, or making them out of thin air, which isn't something that accidentally happens when writing articles. I've blocked you from mainspace to avoid further issues until you can demonstrate that you are able to use LLMs constructively and will not introduce errors at such a high rate in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Whether or not LLMs can be used responsibly on Wikipedia (I think it's possible generally, but relatively rarely in practice), you very clearly did not use them responsibly. As such, a ban on you using LLMs for any purpose on Wikipedia should be part of any unblock.

  I spot checked a lot of your older edits, and there are a lot of signs of LLM pollution in them. For example, in , you added in This launch represents a continuation of bilateral collaboration in high-technology sectors and reflects the growing role of scientific and technological exchanges within the broader framework of trade and economic relations between Iran and Russia., LLM-style prose that draws a broader conclusion that isn't contained within the sources, a notorious LLM quirk. And there are a lot of these.

  Your slopfarming to reduce the work needed for you is now more than cancelled out by the additional work that you've created for others. That is an unacceptable situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  continuation bilateral collaboration high-technology sectors broader framework – If this is what articles are going to read like from here on out, please just kill me now. EEng 18:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  As someone who likes using LLMs for silly pictures that wouldn't exist otherwise, it pains me to see people use them to undermine a collaborative, human-written encyclopedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi again @Haziran11, since you've already been blocked I'm going to copy this message to your Talk page in case you find it easier to speak in a less public place. Firstly, please see Wikipedia:NEWLLM and Wikipedia:AITALK.

  AI and LLM's are well-known for hallucinations and overly promotional language. They cause so many problems at Wikipedia that a lot of editors are genuinely upset and stressed whenever we see yet another new editor using AI without reviewing it's output to check if it's accurate.

  Cutting and pasting AI output takes seconds, but fixing the damage can take hours and is very, very rarely done by the person who caused the problem because they're too inexperienced to understand how to do this.

  Basically, you shouldn't use AI unless you're experienced enough to be able to check all the output thoroughly and understand how to check for and correct errors before publishing. Experienced editors very rarely use AI because it's simply one extra step, another thing they have to check.

  Re. Talk pages, AI always writes in a robotic, sycophantic (overly eager to please) way. Seeing different people say exactly the same thing as each other can be exhausting because we've seen it before. It feels disrespectful, like we're not being listened to because we aren't - we're taking to a machine that can't properly understand what we're saying, so it just spits out the same responses every single time. This happens so often that we can see AI-generated text a mile away. If you write something that's pretty much identical to something we know comes from AI, then all your subsequent replies follow exactly the same pattern, chances are extremely high that you're using AI.

  Even if your English isn't perfect, we always, always want to speak to the human - this is a human-centric encyclopedia, after all.

  AI doesn't currently have the ability to edit Wikipedia properly (we know because people are constantly trying use it), so feeding our replies into the machine doesn't do anything helpful; it just stresses all the humans out and makes things worse for everyone involved - especially the person using the AI. If you don't think it can cause too much damage, please take a moment to check out the Wikipedia:AI noticeboard.

  You've only been blocked from editing articles directly, so you can still submit edits using the Edit request process. Once you've made a few of these and they've been accepted, you could use that as evidence that you know how to edit properly for a future block appeal. One last point, please don't use AI to write your appeal - that obviously won't go down well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Gotta disagree with you there, Blue-Sonnet. My advice is: if you still feel that AI is the best way to write your block appeal, then by all means do so. That way we'll know immediately that you still can't be trusted to edit articles. EEng 21:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Welp, at least this way they've been given every possible chance!

  Pretty much every AI-written appeal looks identical so they're easy to spot, but they can be incredibly exhausting to deal with; the AI never fully understands what's going on & it feels like you're speaking to a brick wall - but I'll stop here lest I go off on a huge rant. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

User:Scu ba has been engaging in a series of serious WP:BLP violations at Tomoko Tamura, where they repeatedly add false or misleading claims for which the cited sources contain no information supporting the text, despite repeated warnings and ongoing discussions at WP:BLP/N#Tomoko Tamura. Their edits heavily mischaracterize the living politician's stated beliefs and positions in a way that contradicts all the available WP:RS on the matter, as well as commonly known facts in the field of East Asian geopolitics (see ).

For a detailed analysis of User:Scu ba's original text, see . There is also a relevant discussion at User talk:Scu ba#Tomoko Tamura.

I would like to request that administrative action be taken against those abusing the system here in accordance with WP:BLPADMINS policy. ~2026-15850-18 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)this looks like a content dispute, and coming here while there's already an active BLP/N thread seems like forum shopping. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to make several points clear:

1) this account is highly suspicious, it was made specifically to take this issue up, and has only been editing on this one page, and the discussions on it that it's created. This has gotten to the point where they defensively claimed I am accusing them of being a temporary sock-puppet account (which I never did, just noting its suspicious the account was solely created to have this debate)

2) the user attempted to close a noticeboard discussion that they themselves created with no talk consensus. When upset that this was reverted, they have escalated the talk here

3) per the noticeboard discussion, all points made by NO CONSENSUS sources where removed

I have a pretty solid hunch that this account is attempting to steer political discourse on the issue at hand (the JCP's position on the Taiwan issue) by using WP rules that they are misunderstanding (again, tried to close a noticeboard discussion they created by themselves unilaterally) as a cudgel. If at all possible I'd like at least an investigation into if this user is a sockpuppet or not.

Per the prior noticeboard, they took offensive to a series of statements Tamura made that where then quoted in Chinese propaganda outfits, those statements have been removed, and all the article reads now as solely that her statements are parroted by Chinese propoganda outfits. There is nothing disruptive about this, but by trying to bury it they are being disruptive in of themselves. Scuba 14:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Editor of military has been warned repeatedly, by multiple editors, against adding unsourced content, misrepresenting sources as supporting his additions when they do not, and adding off-topic information. He has not responded on his talk page or the talk pages of the articles involved, but has continued the behaviour.

University of Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~2025-43468-95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating WP:BLP on the the University of Austin page, even after a final warning. Cadddr (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article but am not going to block the TA as they did provide a source (of sorts). Had they been warned about edit warring, a block might be warranted in that case EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The edits in question (e.g. ) have no inline citation, nothing to indicate that there is any real connection with the university, and given that the 'source' given in the edit summary is the podcast itself, precisely nothing to support 'famously', even in the unlikely circumstance that the prof in question 'defended Jeffrey Epstein' in any meaningful way. A straight WP:BLP violation, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. And looking at the show transcript I'm not sure "defending" is even accurate EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not I think they should be blocked, but does this comment by Legendbird not count as a warning about edit warring? Cadddr (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, it does. I've blocked the TA for BLP violations anyway, especially after rereading this. They were not acting in good faith. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

JGBlue1509 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been warned on 3 separate occasions about the failure to use PREVIEW to check their edits: Special:Diff/1337620042, Special:Diff/1338670153 & Special:Diff/1341129459.

They have ignored every warning and continued the same pattern of editing. They were also given a warning about failure to communicate in this diff as they had ignored every one of the previous messages. Their editing behavior has not improved and they have continued to ignore messages. They once again invented parameters when they created Xiaomi Mi 6.

User clearly does not understand the basic requirement to check their work and preview their edits. Once or twice is one thing, but this is an ongoing problem that this user is actively refusing to address or acknowledge. Request block from article namespace until user demonstrates that they can engage with other editors as required and preview their work. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Like the previous time you brought someone to ANI, you should specify that all of the warnings were from you, and some of the warnings you've left were within a minute of each other. Your example of "failure to communicate" shows them attempting to communicate only for you to shut it down and respond with generic warnings. Even after reading your warnings to them, I still don't know what the actual error was except that it was somehow related to template parameters. There are ways to solve common mistakes in editing that don't involve scolding, threatening, or reporting editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• User:Zackmann08: Giving people multiple warnings within minutes of each other is not acceptable, especially when the editor was attempting to talk with you. Also, failure to use the preview function by itself is not an offense worthy of blocking. While using the preview function is recommended for editors, it is possible to use it and still miss errors. In addition, some editors -- especially those who are neurodiverse -- may have editing patterns that make you think they aren't using the preview function when they are. Anyway, please refrain from posting warnings like this to editors. If this pattern of behavior continues, you may end up being the one getting a warning.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights: the diffs I provided show that these warnings were not minutes apart. One was Feb 10th, one Feb 16th, one March 1st and here we are with the same issue being presented on March 14th. Yes on March 1st I used 2 different templates back to back as there were 2 separate messages that needed to be conveyed. If that action violates some policy (link please?) I will absolutely refrain from doing that in the future. I will point out that in my initial ANI post that started this thread, I treated those back-to-back warnings as one diff, not two. I totally understand and agree that I cannot be upset that someone didn't respond in under a minute so I intentionally said that the user had been warned 3 times even thought technically 4 warnings had been posted because I acknowledge that 2 were posted virtually simultaneously.

  I would like you to explain to me what in my behavior here is worth of a warning? I have been posting these warnings on thousands of pages for years and never have I once been warned that I am doing anything wrong... I would appreciate an explanation of your statement If this pattern of behavior continues, you may end up being the one getting a warning. A warning for what exactly? What policy or procedure am I in violation of? I notified a user, multiple times, weeks apart, that their edits had broken a page. I will also point out that I have made very similar ANI reports dozens of times in the past for this exact same situation with other editors: 3+ unknown param warnings and a failure to communicate warning, that have resulted in blocks of those editors. Not every time', often the editor in question immediately sees the ANI and wakes up (for lack of a better phrase) and changes their editing. But the numerous times that blocks have been applied seemed to be a clear endorsement that what I was doing was correct. When an editor repeatedly makes the same mistake and refuses to address the issue, that is a problem. If there is a lesson to be learned here I am all ears (eyes?) to learn it and change my behavior, but you have not really made any clear point about what supposed mistake I made here?

  I am also bewildered by your statement about neurodivergent editors? I have zero issue with anyone editing regardless of their neurodiversity. What does that have to do with the issue at hand? I see nothing here that is relevant? There are no userboxes on JGBlue1509's page claiming they are neurodivergent and even if there were, not sure what that has to do with the issue at hand? If you cannot understand the clear message I placed on the talk page that very clearly explains the issue, we all know that competence is required. But again, I don't see what that has to do with the issue here... JGBlue1509 did not respond to the first 2 messages and it wasn't until the warning about possibly being blocked that they did respond here in a manner that shows that they had not read the previous messages (and I quote): what happened here? when creating an article about phones, what requirements should met the following?. The issue at hand was very clearly spelled out and the user has not responded further.

  I look forward to better understand what issue you see with my editing so that I can learn from it and do better. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  It's very simple: on JGBlue1509's talk page you posted two warnings within one minute of each other. That's inappropriate and comes off as highly antagonistic. Also, JGBlue1509 is not required to respond to your messages. But when the editor did respond and asked exactly what mistake they made, you replied in a snarky, hostile manner instead of actually answering the question. Then you came to ANI saying that this editor ignored warnings to use preview, which isn't even a reason to block someone. And to top it all off, the error you warned this editor about was so small compared to the new article they'd just created, that even using preview doesn't mean they would have caught it. My point in all this is to chill out and not escalate nothingburgers to ANI, and also take more care in how you talk to other editors. SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  While I acknowledge that posting 2 back to back warnings may not be ideal, they were different warnings. You have only addressed about a third of what I said above, which is in itself an issue. I will take your warning about watching my tone to heart. Hope you will be careful about brining up irrelevant arguments such as some supposed bias against neurodiversity in the future. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't address everything you said b/c you dropped 600 words into the discussion. I'm not going to respond to all that. Also, I didn't accuse you of any bias against neurodiversity -- I simply said that not everyone edits Wikipedia in the same way. That means it can be difficult to know if someone is using preview or not, or if they do use it they may not use preview in the same way you do. SouthernNights (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  You cannot say that I am acting in a way that may warrant admin warnings if I continue, then be surprised when I ask for an explanation of exactly what I am doing wrong and be bothered by the fact that I dropped 600 words? Like what the heck? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  I explained exactly what you were doing wrong. SouthernNights (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  My lesson here is not to post 2 warnings back to back. That is noted and I will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future. At this point I don't see any future discussion needing to take place here and you (or another admin) are free to close this discussion as it seems that it has been deemed that JGBlue1509's repeatedly breaking pages and ignoring warnings (including this ANI discussion) do not warrant any sort of action. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Is this the same Zackmann who is deprecating fields suddenly and breaking info boxes? I recommend Zackmann holds themselves to the same standards and starts to preview their breaking (and needless) changes. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I do hold myself accountable for the mistakes I make and the above is a VERY CLEAR case of WP:EWLO... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF, unlike in the conversation I linked above. You may want to read about temporary accounts. WP:TEMP. This replaces the older IP editor system. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I know full well about temp accounts. The fact that an temp account with ZERO edits to their name, knows about a mistake I made a week ago, means you are clearly an experienced editor who is hiding behind a temp account to avoid these comments being tied to your primary account. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wait, do you think someone has to be logged in to view Wikipedia talk pages? You can probably get WP:TAIV if you tried. It may help you be more civil if you don't jump to as many conclusions without data. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

And, after warning Zackmann about personal attacks, they attacked me again by accusing me of trolling. They've suggested an admin be recalled for an infobox error, and here they are hoping to get another editor sanctioned over a different infobox content dispute. They lashed out at me for pointing out that they also break as many boxes as those they seek to sanction. Honestly, it feels like this editor would do better if they were to stay away from infobox templates completely. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You posted here that I was being disruptive, then immediately trolled my page with a template about a personal attack and are upset that I reverted your edit on my own talk page? If you think that my mistake on {{Infobox mountain}} overrides my over half million constructive edits, you are free to bring an ANI of your own against me. But thus far, your trolling comments are WP:DUCK in my opinion. If any admin feels differently, I will gladly address them further, but won't engage further with this editor who is very clearly a more experienced editor hiding behind a temp account. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

You'd be better off striking the aspersions, or just not responding, than doubling down with more personal attacks. Nobody cares how many edits you have. You do not get to attack people. ~2026-16275-74 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we're giving Zackmann08 a hard time here. There are so many nothingburgers being brought to WP:ANI these days that they obviously thought that it was appropriate. And of course being technically proficient in IT and knowing how to write a template mean that they are better qualified than anyone else to write an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Zackmann08's approach here is an ongoing problem. There is no requirement...to preview their edits in any policy or guideline. There is a requirement to WP:AGF, and dropping templated warnings on users rapidly after an almost certainly inadvertent error was made (in some cases just four minutes after an error) does not leave a reasonable window for the assumption that a good faith editor will return and fix the error, a point I have made to Zackmann08 multiple times. Zackmann08's tone in response has been impatient and condescending. I truly appreciate Zackmann08's work to patrol broken parameters on infoboxes (and have previously said as much), but this work does not need to involve so many templated warnings followed by threats of blocking and ANI complaints (two now on this page) when the editor does not provide a response that satisfies them. Prolific editors make occasional mistakes (I believe one of the ones Zackmann08 warned Deor about was clearly a typo adding an extra "d" to "coordinates"), and infobox parameters are especially fiddly. Wikipedia's policy is that "perfection is not required", so no one should be brought to ANI who is a good-faith editor who has made a few simple and understandable mistakes. (Zackmann08 claims their previous filings have resulted in blocks, but looking at the previous cases, three that resulted in a block had actual blockable issues beyond the non-violation of "not using preview", while two others resulted in no action.) I would urge Zackmann08 to take the feedback they have received from others in these two ANI discussions onboard; if they persist in filing ANI complaints in this kind of situation, I believe WP:BOOMERANG would be an appropriate response. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: I genuinely appreciate your comments and am going to re-examine my process. For what it is worth, the "templated warnings" are always an attempt to educate usually new editors. They are almost always well received by editors who appreciate that I took the time to both correct their error AND inform them of the mistake. As I often tell editors who respond to my templated message, we were all new at one point and this is how we learn also I have been known to point out that if I had a nickel for every time I've broken something on here, I could retire and edit full time.

When I drop the same message multiple times over the course of days, weeks or months, repeatedly on the same user's talk page it can be frustrating to feel like they are repeating the same error with no regard for the fact that others have to clean up their mistakes. What I am hearing here is that I need to be more careful about when that personal frustration of feeling like I am being ignored actually warrants an ANI. You identified some of the previous cases where my primary reason for filing an ANI was the same as this one, but you have correctly pointed out that there were other issues at play in those cases that were missing from this case.

@SouthernNights: I will also acknowledge to you that I need to not let my personal frustrations leach out in snarky responses. I am usually pretty good about educating without being a dick... But we are all human and sometimes I'm just annoyed that I have to explain something for the 5th or 6th time. This is one of the many reasons I have never thrown my hat into the ring to be an admin despite multiple suggestions that I do so and my editing experience.

In any event, I appreciate you both for helping me learn from this. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's all good and thanks for the kind words. You're an excellent editor doing much-needed work and stuff like this isn't worth getting stressed out over. SouthernNights (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree that you're doing great work patrolling infobox changes and I appreciate your considering the feedback. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

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

DA persists in error and cannot understand what he did wrong. He is preaching about the Holy Trinity, Christian faith, the soul, The Truth, and good thoughts. His block will soon expire has expired. and . The second diff is before he got blocked. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Dragos Albei is a ranty SPA promoting incoherent pseudo-medical crankery with religious overtones. I spotted this when he edited Judith Reisman with this astonishingly awful edit summary full of personal attacks and allegations of criminality. (Maybe that should be revdelled?)

I saw that he got a short block and I had a feeling that that might not be the end of it so I kept a tab open and was waiting to see what he did once the block expired. So far, he is just kvetching incoherently on his User Talk page, which is not great, but at least he hasn't tried to mess up the article again. I'd probably have waited to see whether he did that before bringing it here but then, if he had accused me of promoting paedophilia and infanticide in an edit summary, then maybe I wouldn't have been so reticent either. I can hardly blame tgeorgescu if he has had enough of this crap. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not on. Those posts on the talk page make it clear they're WP:NOTHERE. Revdel'd that edit summary and blocked indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• It must be said, however, that the Judith Reisman article is a rambling mess. EEng 04:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can't do everything myself. I still abode by WP:PRESERVE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-13478-51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This isn't immediately obvious vandalism, but includes:

• Unexplained content removal:
• Posting false information directly contradicted by reliable sources:
  • removing all information on Swoop Airlines operating Boeing 737-8 MAX, despite sources stating otherwise, e.g. (granted, the original article's source is now a deadlink as they are a defunct airline)
    • Violating 3RR on the edit above:
  • stripping the fleet table of WestJet of everything except for the 737-800
  • likewise for Flair Airlines
• Blanking vandalism and disruptive editing warnings from Talk page:
• Removing this ANI report:

4300streetcar (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31h. Anyone else is free to bump that if necessary. Izno (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I have requested page protection for WestJet, Swoop (airline), and Sunwing Airlines via WP:RFPP shown here. WestJet was the hardest hit by vandalism. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 12:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Today, in a discussion over whether a specific detail is due or undue weight or synth, and whether linking to a user upload is a problem per WP:COPYLINK, MjolnirPants said this to me: "if you continue to behave like this with regards to this topic or related ones, you are very likely to end up on the wrong side of an WP:ANI filing that mentiones WP:NONAZIS. [...] I am not accusing you of being a Nazi, but I am saying that your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi."

in other words, "I'm not accusing you of being a neo-Nazi, but you are acting like a neo-Nazi." Preceding your aspersions with a denial of you saying it does not make it fine. Over an argument about, of all things, synth and WP:COPYLINK, where I repeatedly stated that the topic at issue was a conspiracy theory and never once denied it being so, but that a random detail was not due weight, it is not in any way proportional.

This is not related to the content dispute at issue, everyone else in the conversation was being perfectly cordial despite our content disagreement, but accusing someone of acting like a neo-Nazi for disagreeing with you about copyright law and WP:SYNTH is grossly inappropriate.

Saying "your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi" is absolutely casting WP:ASPERSIONS and is absolutely ridiculous in context, when no one is disputing the racist nature of the material at issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'll preface this by saying that I'm a wiki-friend of MPants. I've read the discussion from which the diff above comes, and what I see there are multiple (4, I think, including MPants) editors expressing increasing frustration with PARAKANYAA, who appears to be a minority of one in the discussion. Do I think it was necessary for MPants to have said that? No. Would I prefer that MPants hadn't said it? Yes. But it kind of looks to me like PARAKANYAA is WP:SEALIONING everyone else there, or at the very minimum is trying everyone else's patience. It's a fraught topic (the copylink question concerns neo-Nazi sources), and I'd say that MPants took the WP:BAIT, and PARAKANYAA is taking advantage of the opportunity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a fraught topic, I don't deny that, and until today I hadn't responded to it in multiple days. I don't think anyone else there had an issue given the other participants admitted that the original sourcing was an issue (we are thankfully no longer citing the Nazi memorandum) and said that the edits in question were "well intentioned and have improved this article in many ways". I don't think there was any other hostility there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, I wish MPants hadn't said that. But my reading of what the other editors are saying to you there is that they are saying, politely, that they are becoming annoyed with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well, my bad on that then, that was not a mood that I detected, but if so I can stop engaging with that thread. The discussion can die there, and I apologize to Dn and Bob; I previously conceded that the current content was not really objectionable to me. But accusing other editors of acting like neo-Nazis is not acceptable if they annoy you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Getting annoyed is not justification for saying I am not accusing you of being a Nazi, but I am saying that your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi. Schazjmd (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  I did not say it because I was annoyed. I said it because PARA's engagement was starting to look more and more like POV pushing, and I wanted them to be able to understand and correct that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Which comments in particular do you think constitute sealioning? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not Tryp, but the whole conversation strikes me that way. PARA repeatedly ignored corrections on factual matters, misrepresented policy, misrepresented sources and continued to argue despite 4 different editors expressing their disagreement and nobody expressing support. That isn't something that's easy to demonstrate with a single diff. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  What factual matters was PARA incorrect about? What PAGs/sources did they misrepresent? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  They misrepresented WP:COPYLINK, which they had previously linked and presumably read here. In the same edit, they also misrepresented the AN source by claiming it did not address the topic (it explicitly pushes the conspiracy theory). There are some other comments there in which they claim the ADL source needs to be connected to the AN source, despite being told several times that it explicitly addresses the AN source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

First off: I stand by what I said. If a well-meaning editor is behaving in a way which aligns them with Nazis, that editor deserves to have that called out so they can address and correct it. Not pointing out why their engagement is becoming disruptive does no favors to anyone. I would note that PARA already had their dishonesty there pointed out by multiple editors, and ignored that. Pursuant to that, I would like anyone interested to read that discussion, in which PARAKANYAA repeats multiple false claims despite being corrected by multiple other editors, multiple times. Indeed, PARA never once addresses any of those corrections, ignoring them completely while responding to other parts of the comments. I would note my explicit disclaimer that I was not accusing PARA of being a Nazi, which was summarily ignored in order to make this complaint. I was, rather clearly, explaining how their engagement there was becoming disruptive due to their inability to engage with the facts and their continued insistence upon misrepresenting sources and policies in order to advance an argument for softening the language in that article.

Second, their arguments there and their push to soften language (which I have continued to hold is done in good faith, regardless of the results), aligns with their behavior at Talk:Great_Replacement conspiracy theory#Removed further reading, in which they deleted the entire further reading section of the article citing an oddly specific interpretation of policy (an interpretation which seems drawn from thin air, in fact).

Finally: I completely fail to see how this was a 'misclick', as PARA claimed. It really looks both WP:POINTY and petty, to me. Like an attempt to get under my skin. Especially as it happened on the talk page of that essay. This would not be the first time even in the past month an editor made an obvious effort to provoke me into doing something that could get me sanctioned.

In short, I don't think PARA should be editing in this topic, as their behavior hasn't been productive and is rapidly starting to look like a net negative. The immediate jump from "MPants said something questionable" to this filing only seems to support the theory that PARA is engaged in POV pushing, and trying to remove an obstacle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

How does my behavior on that article align me with Nazis? I did not ever protest the thrust of the article being that of a conspiracy, but the inclusion of a single irrelevant document in a 10,000 word article.

And no, none of my claims were false as far as I am aware.

You plainly did accuse me of acting like a neo-Nazi, which is all of what I said. "your engagement here aligns with that which any reasonable editor would expect of a Nazi." How else was I supposed to interpret that - you are a reasonable editor, so you are including yourself in the category.

I stand by the further reading edits. Adding sources that provide less information than the article to further reading is useless. Why? What does it add? What POV is that pushing? The further reading duplicates the article content which per WP:FURTHER is not helpful. That is not POV pushing.

I do apologize for the misclick, that was entirely my bad. I am editing on a tablet and I was trying to find the old id of an edit you made to the talk page, that was in your most recent edits and I have twinkle on. If you click twinkle on accident it simply does without asking you. I have done this multiple times to editors who were not you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

And no, none of my claims were false as far as I am aware. You have claimed both that the ADL source had no connection to the AN source (the ADL source was about the AN source) and that the AN source is not connected to the topic (the AN source explicitly advances the conspiracy theory). Both Bob and I explicitly corrected you on this, with me doing so multiple times. DN also rejected your claims. You have never once addressed any of those corrections, you simply ignored them. I would remind you again of WP:PACT. At this point, claiming that you were not making any false claims is merely more transparent dishonesty. We all know you were reading our comments, and you repeatedly implied that you read the sources. There is no excuse for you to not recognize the facts here.

And yes, you filing this has finally pushed me past AGFing your engagement there, and convinced me that you are deliberately trying to soften the language to align it with your POV. I still would not go so far as to say you are a Nazi, but you are not engaging with reality, and the POV you are advancing is one that Nazis would approve of (even if mildly). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I claimed that the ADL source said nothing about white genocide, the article for which we are citing it in. This is true. I did not claim that the AN source was unrelated, it obviously advances the conspiracy, but as a primary source it did not evidence due weight in an article that is 10,000 words long. I therefore did not include it in my analysis of the three original sources we were citing, assuming that you would realize I would not count the neo-Nazi source as a reliable one. I should have clarified.

How would this position, that this document is undue weight to this topic, advance a position that Nazis would approve of? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You claimed that the AN source had no bearing on this topic. "The AN source is not secondary. We have no secondary source that connects this very obscure document to the topic." That is a copied-and-pasted quote from your comments, a quote which you made after I pointed out that the AN source pushed the topic in the very first sentence of my first comment.

How would this position, that this document is undue weight to this topic, advance a position that Nazis would approve of? I have explained that multiple times right here. You are advocating for softening our coverage of a white supremacist conspiracy theory and creating distance between the theory and explicitly white supremacist groups. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. We had no secondary source that connects this obscure memorandum to this topic (white genocide). That has not been disproven. We had one source that mentions it, but does not mention it in reference to white genocide, one that does not mention any topic relevant at all, and the primary source. Where is the secondary source that connects the document to white genocide? Nowhere did I dispute that the document talks about white genocide, but a primary source talking about something does not make it due weight for inclusion unless secondary sources note that fact.

We don't keep poorly sourced material in articles just to make the topics of articles look bad, even if they suck. My objection was purely in terms of sourcing. Bob found somewhat better sourcing, so whatever now, but that doesn't mean I am acting like a Nazi for pointing out that the original sourcing was bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I read the talk page discussion, and I read the sources for the text that is under dispute. IMO, PARAKANYAA is registering reasonable objections: the NYT article does not support the text at all (is that the right NYT article??) and the ADL source doesn't really indicate that the AN declaration was of significance or influence so it's reasonable to question the inclusion of that much text about it solely based on that source. Making those types of objections are hardly aligning themselves with Nazis, just as I am not aligning myself with Nazis by making my observations here. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Those were not the objections PARA raised. They objected that we had no source to connect the ADL source to the AN one (which is false) and that the AN source was not connected to the topic (also false). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Those were the objections I raised. I objected that the ADL source says nothing about white genocide or why the AN memorandum is relevant to white genocide and I said the AN source did not evidence due weight because it is primary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I quoted you above. Misrepresenting your own words is not wise here. You claimed, multiple times, that the AN source is not about the topic. That is demonstrably false. You also continue to claim that the ADL source is about the topic (including right here), but the ADL source is about a document that pushes the conspiracy theory. So that is also false. Couching objections rooted in false claims of fact in policy does not make them any more true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I claimed it wasn't a secondary source, which it isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I will not continued to argue with you over what you explicitly wrote, which I have quoted above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

And I have answered above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

pruning your contributions to that discussion is also unwise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed a single contribution that no one responded to, because Tryptofish made me realize I had perhaps responded too much. I stand by my statement, but I had perhaps repeated myself there a bit much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. But, even if it weren't correct, accusing another editor allying themselves with neo-Nazi beliefs is clearly a personal attack. @MjolnirPants, you should retract your statement. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I just did. I stand by it: PARA seems to be POV pushing in this article, but I'm happy enough to accept that my way of wording my advice brought more heat than light. I remain concerned about PARA's ability to comply with WP:HONEST. They have repeatedly ignored corrections on factual matters, continue to ignore the fact that the AN source is about the topic in order to claim to care about secondary sources connecting it to the topic, and continue to imply that other editors have claimed that the AN source is, in fact, secondary, all of which do not speak highly of their ability to remain honest.

Even if PARA is not engaged in POV pushing, then they have demonstrated a marked inability to accept correction, even on factual matters. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:19, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You can't retract a statement and stand by it at the same time. I remain concerned about your ability to remain objective in the topic area of race and American politics. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I stand by the sentiment that PARA's involvement there is in poor form and looks like POV pushing. I am not standing by the words that I used, comparing their behavior to what one would expect of a Nazi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Just yesterday I suggested that MjolnirPants avoid threatening other editors with admin action (regarding these ) and noted that they have likely made several personal attacks, both of which are not conducive to collaborative discussion. I did not investigate further as it was out of scope for that venue, but I am not happy to see such similar behavior repeated today. Toadspike [Talk] 23:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Owld26 is repeatedly performing edits that add unsourced "analysis" to an article, e. g. , as well as rewording sentences in a clumsy manner that suggests they are ussing an LLM (diffs . Somepinkdude (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the first step after a level 1 template warning (left by someone else, and the only other thing on their Talk page) is an immediate ANI? You didn't even try to talk with the editor about this (who is also new, so this comes across a bit WP:BITEy). I also fail to see how the linked diffs demonstrate any WP:LLMSIGNS - changing the word "clabbed" to "clothed" is clumsy and LLM-like, really? They are doing the standard newcomer suggested task of revising tone: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Growth/Tools/Newcomer_Tasks#revise-tone MolecularPilot^Talk 23:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks more like a newcomer task issue than an AI issue. This task is, in my opinion, not necessarily ideal to give to newcomers, as figuring out what is or isn't encyclopedic tone (and what even has to be changed) is something you progressively intuit, and there is more potential for unintentional damage. I don't think Owld26 should be blamed for that, but I think it should spark a broader conversation about how much (or how little) guidance we are providing to new editors when giving them tasks that they might not be fully familiar with.

I'm not sure if the quiz that the link describes has been implemented or is still at the prototyping stage. Either way, it is a step in the right direction, and gives us something we can focus our efforts on, in order to make the intent of the task clearer. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the task. I'm not too sure about the quiz, but it does seem like a good idea. I just really think this ANI is far too premature, the opener didn't even try to talk to Owld26 about their tone edits and immediately comes here to try and get someone, who just created their account today, immediately sanctioned, with frankly quite underwhelming evidence that allegedly suggests "AI use" (which, even if claims of AI use were substantiated, a warning / discussion on there Talk about it would be a necessary first step before ANI). The only Talk messages Owld26 has ever received are a level 1 warning (from a different editor) and this ANI notice. MolecularPilot^Talk 00:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)