This page is forurgent incidents andchronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours arearchived automatically byLowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the/Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage.(archives, search)

Persistent bad faith assumption and personal attacks by User:Aciram

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

Aciram has been casting aspersions and assuming bad faith for a while, to the point where ignoring them is no longer an option.

• This last comment of theirs consists of a list of aspersions that they won't able to substantiate. The claim thatAn PI-adress is not normally given as much weight as a registered user is not even worth answering.
• Talk:Barbary_slave_trade#Use_of_slaves: an uncalled for personal attack.
• Talk:Slavery_in_al-Andalus#Some_sources_need_improvement: a series of aspersions.
• Assuming bad faith with an IP: falsely claiming that the IP has vandalised the article and accusing them of having an agenda.

Basically, in their view, if you don't agree with them, then you must be a vandal (or at the very least, have an agenda that they will repeat everywhere to discredit you).M.Bitton (talk)16:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some more examples that are recent? The middle two are from January 2025 and April 2024 respectively. And the latter is a whopping 1,083 words...

Anyway, from my view, if I have to go PURELY based on my opinion on the whole sex slavery thing - I agree with Aciram. However, this isn't supposed to be a collection of opinions. It has to be neutral and reliably sourced, and I feel like Aciram is letting her personal views shield her judgement.I will not engage in communication with this User Aciram, I'm really sorry, but unless there is an IBAN imposed, if you have a content dispute that M.Bitton is on the other side of - you've got to communicate. I do empathise with your struggles with anxiety as I can relate but I don't exactly see it as M.Bitton's fault for trying to contact you. This is purely from what I've read though, if there's more context being left out I'm likely to develop my opinions.jolielover♥talk16:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the others to show how long the assumption of bad faith has been going on.M.Bitton (talk)17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton; could you please explain why when Aciram asked you to avoid communicating with them[1] you decided to double down and post on their talk page anyway while calling their mental health into doubt?[2] Wow. Just...wow. --Hammersoft (talk)17:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was in April of last year (when I was the subject of a personal attack by them). I avoided their talk page ever since.M.Bitton (talk)17:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain your actions. If you believe you've been the target of a personal attack, it does not excuse your behavior and allow you to make a personal attack against them. Please explain your actions, since this is wholly inadequate. --Hammersoft (talk)17:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was in the past and it hasn't been repeated since, unlike their aspersions casting and persistent bad faith assumption. 17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)M.Bitton (talk)17:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not an explanation. Please explain why you decided to double down and attack themwith this? You're willing to dismiss the past because it came from 2024 but not dismiss comments from Aciram in the past. --Hammersoft (talk)17:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believed what I said back then (having mental health issues doesn't justify casting aspersions) and in any case, I haven't repeated it since, unlike their aspersions casting and bad faith assumption that show no sign of abating.M.Bitton (talk)17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that doesn't justify you calling their mental health concerns into question.This posting of yours was an absolutely egregious personal attack. Had I seen it in the moment, I would have immediately blocked you. You weregrossly out of line. --Hammersoft (talk)17:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HammersoftJolielover I should perhaps have reported it, but I was not feeling well enough to do anything about it, as is perhaps evident from how I wrote. This is not the only occasion. Further back, this user had a discussion with two other users on my own talk page; I told them that they could do as they wished, and asked them to leave my talk page since their constant aggressive posting was triggering an attack. They, M.Bitton being the dominant party, continued despite me informing them that that had indeed caused a panic attack. I can see from my posting, that my writing becomes incoherent, since I was in the middle of an attack. This was traumatic for me, and I have not wished to speak to him ever since. I would not object to him being reported or banned, though I am not informed about what the possibilities are, and I doubted they can be many, since I have little energy to do much myself. --Aciram (talk)18:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your excuse for continuing to cast aspersions and assuming bad faith (including with passing IPs)?M.Bitton (talk)18:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never called their their mental health concerns into question. All I said is that it's not an excuse to keep casting aspersions.M.Bitton (talk)17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurgh, I agree. People behind screens go through a lot of things and just one person not being kind could trigger something. It's rude to insinuate someone is lying. Let's AGF.jolielover♥talk17:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(M.Bitton) Your snide sarcasmin the post belies that. Again, it was an egregious personal attack. Trying to dismiss it as in the past, trying to dismiss it that it wasn't repeated, ...trying to dismiss it in ANY way doesn't take away the reality that you were mocking someone's mental health issues. --Hammersoft (talk)17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly didn't mock someone's mental health, nor can I ever do such a thing.M.Bitton (talk)17:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment speaks for itself. --Hammersoft (talk)17:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.M.Bitton (talk)17:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That obviously applies to everyone, including those who don't complain.M.Bitton (talk)17:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover; there is a long history. I do not have an active conflict with this user. A couple of years ago, I believe, I had a dispute with this user. The user removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from an article regarding slavery in Islam. After this incident, the very same thing occurred on several different occasions.

Now: when a person removes contextually relevant and well referenced information from several different articles regarding a specific subject, giving "cherry picking" and "out of context" and similar reasons for these removals, it is natural that you are given the impression that this user has an agenda.

In this specific case, the only occasions in which I had anything to do with M.Bitton, is in articles dealing with the subject of slavery in Islam. What can I say? It is difficult to keep a belief in good faith and NPOV, when this hapen again and again. When you notice such a pattern, logic will give you the impression of a bias agenda.

Generally, to have a discussion with a person who may have an agenda, is deeply exhausting. It will eventually lead nowhere. It is not constructive. Nevertheless, a wikipedia editor should participate in such discussions for the good of wikipedia. Otherwise the content of wikipedia will be affected by people with an agenda; I am aware of this. But I can not do this. Why?

I suffer from anxiety disorders and I can not participate in long, outdrawn and agressive discussions, which will often contain attacks, insults and hostility for weeks on end. I admire those who do. But such discussions will give me anxiety attacks, and such can result in self harm. I will strongly add, that the only reason I describe this here; is to explain myself. That is the reason, and the only reason, I write this.

Because of this reason, I have the policy, that when I disagree with another user about a content issue, I will simply let my oponent do as they wish. This is done to avoid a triggering aggressive discussion, particular when I can see what appear to be an agenda in a user. There are not rules in Wikipedia regarding simply letting your oponent having their way in a content dispute, I assume? If not, we have no problem in that regard. On previous occasions, I have always allowed M.Bitton to have his way. In this occasion, I did as well.

In a previous discussion, I openly told M.Bitton, that he triggered an anxiety attack, bowed down to his opinion, and asked him to stop participating in a discussion which him and two other users had on my own talk page, and where I did not participate. I asked them to stop. They chose to continue, showing deep contemt and disregard for my health. I am sure you can understand that I do not see that M.Bitton will have a constructive discussion with me.

This particular issue, is yet again about slavery in Islam. An IP-adress removed the wording "chattel slavery" from an article in which slaves could be sold, bought and owned. I have not reinstated it, and I will not do so either. I accepted the change as soon as I saw that M.Bitton was involved, because experience have shown me, that such a discussion will not be constructive. I do not belive that I have an obligation to speak to M.Bitton, if I simply bow down and accept any edit he wish to do? Well, I accept any edit he wish to do. I consider it necessary for my health. I am willing do to this to avoid speaking to this user. Thank you. --Aciram (talk)17:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when this hapen again and again care to explain why you accused the IP of vandalism and having an agenda?M.Bitton (talk)17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these diffs are quite old, and nothing in them is sanctionable, either individually or as a whole.Aciram, I would advise you to avoid using the termapologists, as it could be considered a personal attack, but these diffs don't rise to the level of a formal warning, let alone a block.M.Bitton, even if unintentional, that talk page comment came off as belittling someone's mental health issues, which is highly unacceptable. In the future, don't bring up people's struggles in such a manner. Other than that, I don't see any sanctions coming out of this thread, except maybe an IBAN.QuicoleJR (talk)17:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the old comments because of the recent one (i.e., to show continuation of something that isn't likely to stop). Short of responding in kind (my mental health is important to me too) or reporting it here, what else am I supposed to do?M.Bitton (talk)18:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend the two of you do a self imposedWP:IBAN, so this doesn't come up again. --Hammersoft (talk)18:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IBAN doesn't address the fact that they keep casting aspersions on me (you'll notice that they have a history of talking about me, rather than to me).M.Bitton (talk)18:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are annoyed by their comments, and as I said above, calling you a slavery apologist was a personal attack. However, I don't think it reaches the level of instituting a block. I'd recommend an IBAN to prevent further issues, since the incivility seems to only occur when they are in content disputes with you, and your hands aren't exactly clean here either. The IBAN also would address the issue of aspersions, as they would no longer be permitted to mention you anywhere on the site, nor would you be permitted to mention them.QuicoleJR (talk)18:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My hands are clean. There is no justification for their uncalled for attacks in the middle of unrelated discussions. I also never mentioned them as I have no interest in them. The last time that I pinged them about their unjustified revert of a well explained edit (December 2024), they ignored my question. Also, their bad faith assumption is not limited to me. (M.Bitton (talk)18:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR. Thank you, I will try to avoid using "apologist". For me personally an IBAN would be a relief. I already avoid speaking to him. This user once triggered a panic attack with his agressive posting on my page, and refused to stop even when I informed him that I was indeed having a panic attack. However, it is concerning that in that case, I would not be able to alert anyone if I observe things such as for example bias editing (?). I can not hide, that there is a reason for what is called "aspersions": it is difficult for me to see NPOV for a user who has again and again removed well referenced and contextually relevant information from articles concerning slavery in Islam, in combiation with having described sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent[3]. I have described such incidents here:[4] This genuinly concerns me. I would have reported potential bias long ago, and the only reason I have not, is because I know I am not fit for the long discussion that would take. But someone should, some day; and I have hoped that eventually, I would have what it takes to participate in such a discussion. I am being frank here because I am concerned for these articles. --Aciram (talk)18:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you.

having descrbed sexual slavery in Islam as benevolentI challenge you to substantiate this nonsense that you're attributing to me.M.Bitton (talk)18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Saying "Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you" is a personal attack itself. You are commenting on the editor, not on their edits. If you are incapable of making that distinction, you shouldn't be editing here. ReadWikipedia:No personal attacks and take it to heart. --Hammersoft (talk)18:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This report about casting aspersions is about an editor and them doubling down on it here of all places is something that needs to be highlighted for what it is.M.Bitton (talk)18:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your method of highlighting it is to insult them? --Hammersoft (talk)18:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insult, it's a fact. Attributing utter nonsense to me in an effort to discredit me is literally a joke. The fact that nobody seems to be bothered by it is frankly shocking.M.Bitton (talk)18:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is shocking is that you don't thinkbelittling someone's mental health is a personal attack. What is shocking is you don't think telling someone that being insulting comes naturally to them is a personal attack.WP:NPA is blatantly clear on this;"Comment on content, not the contributors". Talking about things coming naturally to them is talking about them, not about their contributions. If you persist in insulting people on this project, I will recommend you blocked not so much for the personal insults but for the inability to recognize that you are insulting people and violatingWP:NPA. --Hammersoft (talk)18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first part hasalready been addressed. The second is rather strange as it tells me that the rules that apply to me don't apply to the others (they can insult me and claim all kind of nonsense about me all day long, and that's fine).M.Bitton (talk)18:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently addressed, yes. As to the second, I am talking aboutyour behavior. You are out of line for saying"Casting aspersions seems to come naturally to you". If you are not capable of seeing that is a personal attack, you probably shouldn't be editing here. --Hammersoft (talk)18:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see everything (that's the problem). Anyway, I said what I needed to say, so time for me to move on.M.Bitton (talk)19:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What willingness to change? They are literally doubling down on the aspersions and bad faith assumption on this very board (in fact, they have done nothing else but that).M.Bitton (talk)19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the comment where they agreed to avoid calling people apologists. As for the aspersions, that's why this is a two-way ban. The fact that both of you seemingly want to report the other for NPOV violations further underscores the fact that you two will likely never be able to get along in any productive way, and a ban from interacting is necessary.QuicoleJR (talk)19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a single comment out many that they made and keep making (see below). There is no question that they have been assuming bad faith and casting aspersions for a long time. The fact that they are incapable of substantiating their nonsense (even when challenged) is telling.M.Bitton (talk)19:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thank those who has shown support. But before this is made, and I can't mention him again, I must once and for all issue a warning.

I believe the editing of User:M.Bitton show a bias agenda to use the rules to remove information about slavery in Islam, and to portray the instition as benevolent. This agenda is indicated by his editing several years back. I notice this, because I have written about the subject for several years, and this is the only occasion when I have encountered him. I have described such incidents here:[5]

To me, this conflict have always been about this agenda. I have genuine concern for it. And I am very sad, and feel guilty, that this discussion may know have rendedered these concerns invalid. I have a genuine belief that these concerns are valid.

If I had reported this when I first noticed it, it may have been taken seriously, and adressed. Now, it will not. And I am very, very sorry, that my behaviour may have made it possible for them to continue for a long time. I should have reported them a long time ago. I am very sorry for wikipedia and for this subject issue, that I did not. --Aciram (talk)19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you seem incapable of not responding to the other's actions. That's why this interaction ban is needed. To both you and M.Bitton, my advice is to DROP IT and stop commenting about each othernow rather than after the IBAN goes into effect. Neither of you is convincing the other, and both of you are making it worse.Drop it and move on. --Hammersoft (talk)19:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize, and I will now leave the discussion. I will make no further posts. I understand, that because of this discussion, nothing of what I say about M.Bitton, will be taken seriously. We are in conflict; and therefore, what I say will be viewed as bias. I understand this, and I accept this. Before I go, I humbly and respectfully ask you to consider, that the only thing I have ever been concerned about, is the NPOV of the subject. That was the reason I wrote the text above. I understand it can no longer be taken seriously because of the nature if this discussion. I therefore leave now. I will respect any decission you chose to make. I have nothing further to say, and can only be sorry for the effect this has. --Aciram (talk)19:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate support or opposition for a two-way (i.e. both parties subject to)interaction ban betweenUser:Aciram andUser:M.Bitton.

Support Given ongoing comments here, I think this is the best option moving forward. I had hoped for a voluntary IBAN that they both kept to, but that's obviously not going to be accepted. Time to put this into place. --Hammersoft (talk)18:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Both of them are productive users, but neither of them can get along civilly. To answer your question,Aciram, neither of you would be allowed to mention each other in any capacity on Wikipedia unless you are reporting a violation of the interaction ban, and you would also not be allowed to revert each other's edits.QuicoleJR (talk)19:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have worked with both editors, directly and indirectly, and both in my opinion are quality editors. I see comments by both that are not content-focused. --Kansas Bear (talk)19:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposedue to M.Bitton's precipitation of this incident. A one-way ban on M.Bitton might be appropriate especially given how this started: (1) an IP removes "chattel" from articles, not just wrongly but even citinga source in their edit summaries[6][7] which directly contradicts them; (2) Aciram reverts, with some asperity; (3) M.Bitton intervenes to reinstate the IP's edits rather than BRD-style leave the status quo in place pending discussion, and demands sources of Aciram not the IP editor (4) on being criticised by Aciram, M.Bitton launches this ANI thread, bringing up Aciram's comments in January 2025 and April 2024, but not describing how M.Bitton provoked Aciram.NebY (talk)22:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having read all these replies and diffs this seems the best way forward to stop the personal attacks and aspersions and both can continue to edit constructively away from each other.GothicGolem2903:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This appears to be necessary to deal with the issues here. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}02:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I comment? I am full willing to adjust to such a ban. I already avoid speaking to him as much as possible, and I will accept and follow any rule given here. I have only one question: would it still be possible for me to report him if I should see bias editing? I ask this because I have genuin concern for NPOV. I think lack of NPOV is legitimate to report? I would have done so long ago if I thought I had the strenght to handle the discussion. I did not, and therefore, my observation and assesment of the bias editing has perhaps come out the wrong way, and for that I am sorry. But I do have genuine concern for NPOV. --Aciram (talk)18:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise (including for violation of NPOV, misrepresenting the sources to push a POV and assuming bad faith with other editors).M.Bitton (talk)18:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. This concerns me. In my opinion, his editing shows an agenda to remove as much as possible about slavery in Islam and portray the insitition us benevolent. I have described such incidents here:[8] I should have reported him for breaking NPOV long ago. I did not because I lacked trust in my ability to handle a heated discussion. It will therefore be my fault if he indeed has bias and contiue with bias editing, unless someone else report him. I feel as if I have lacked in my duty to wikipedia and the articles I am concerned for, by not reporting him before. I am myself guilty if this POV-concern is not taken seriously. And for that I am sorry and feel helpless. --Aciram (talk)19:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too late to report whatever you're claiming. You can start by addressingthis.M.Bitton (talk)19:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this discussion now. It is sad to think, how different the NPOV issue ([9]) may have been recieved, if it had been put forward in a different discussion than this. --Aciram (talk)19:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• An interaction ban is an interaction ban, full stop. It is not an interaction ban except forreport[ing] him if I should see bias editing. Ibanned editors are not allowed to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}20:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What Bushranger said. We have a lot of editors here, if there are problems with M.Bitton's editing I'm sure someone else will notice.Nil Einne (talk)03:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already been given a reply above, and I understand. I accept that any accusation or observation regarding POV from me about this user can not be taken seriously because of the topic of this ANI-discussion. If I had reported POV before this discussion, it would have been taken seriously and adressed, which would have been good for wikipedia. Now, it will not be taken seriously. I accept this, but I can still feel sorry for these circumstances, because they are caused by me, and is my fault. If I had not been a covard because of my anxity problems, I would have reported POV. I did not. I blame myself for this. Hence my comments. I have the respond I need. Thank you.

I am not sure how this will go practially since were both interested in articles of slavery in Islam, but I suppose we will figure it out. I have never "cast aspersions"/expressed concerns on POV, on other occasions than when there have been content disputes on talk pages - and here. And I would not have begun doing so in other occasions either. --Aciram (talk)12:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: what was the purpose of these[10][11] (look at the timestamps) if not to taunt me? Isthis comment about me (again) canvassing or am I mistaken?M.Bitton (talk)13:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have thanked M.Bitton by mistake. My thank you was directed toward his oponent in the discussion, who shares my opinion that M.Bitton have removed the term "chattel slavery" from an Islamic slavery article unjustly. This is the very same issue that caused M.Bitton to report me to ANI and start this discussion. My concern is now raised by another user on the talk page of the article, who agrees with me. I gave that person a thank you because they are adressing an issue of bias that I will soon no longer be able to adress. I appologize for thanking M.Bitton by mistake: I have no interest in taunting people. I have always only been interested in the NPOV issue, and I was relieved to see that others may adress it as well now. It was incidents like these that gave me the impression of biases and disregard for NPOV regarding slavery in Islam, and of POV pushing to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This was always of concern for me.--Aciram (talk)13:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not too worried about the content (the utter disregard for the NPOV policy will be dealt with once the relevant projects are notified of the issue). All I want is a reassurance that the taunting (including talking about me in a disparaging way) will cease.M.Bitton (talk)14:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per what others have said a two way IBAN will prevent them mentioning you at all(as it will with you as well) so if that proposal passes them mentioning you will cease or they will be breaching it.GothicGolem2915:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment M.Bitton appears to belive that my mission in life is to have an evil agenda to taunt him. No, my mission in Wikipedia is to write about history from a NPOV. M.Bitton had consistently done everything he can to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent and remove any information contrary to it by calling it "cherry picking". This have always concerned me greatly.

He has already descrived sexual slavery in Islam as benevolent, because the sex slaves of Muslim rulers lived in luxury. Now, he wishes to remove that fact that slavery in Islamic countries was chattel slavery. Chattel slavery was a type of slavery in which humans can be sold, bought and owned. It is for example acknowledged that Roman slavery was chattel slavery. It is deeply painful to see such an POV agenda be pushed, and know that I will be unable to adress this.

The only reason I have not reported this is because I am too mentally ill to handle such a hostile discussion. To see such a POV be pushed on wiki, and be unable to do anything about it is painful, when one has worked on wikipedia so long as I have, and I am genuinly saddened when I see it.

I should stop reading this discussion now. I don't understand why there should be such hostility. I have never been interested in M.Bitton as a person. I am deeply concerned about M.Bitton's agenda to make Islamic slavery sound benevolent. This concern is genuine. To potentially see it happening, is heart breaking. And I see know, that the best I can do for my health is to no longer observe this discussion and take all articles concerning slavery in Islam of my watch list.

Other users may not have the interest to adress the issue, because people in general are mainly focused on the Atlantic slave trade and slavery in the US, and rarely show interest in Islamic slavery. Therefore, I believe that there will be a suscesful POV-push by M.Bitton in the subject due to a lack of interest in the issue from other users. There will be nothing I can do, and that is deeply concerning. This is sad for the Wikipedia project, and it it hapens I will have no will to work on it anymore. As you can see from my writing, I am not mentally well, and I aknowledge I am not, and I may not always phrase myself well, but my concern is genuine and my concern is of NPOV. I don't now how M.Bitton justifies this to himself, but I can only say this makes me so deeply saddened and worried. --Aciram (talk)14:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: If you two are banned from interacting, other users (such as the people who agreed with you in that talk page thread) would still be able to enforce NPOV. I would recommend that you and M.Bitton both stop making new comments in this thread unless specifically asked a question, since both of you are entering intobludgeoning territory. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)15:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've already both been advised above. They can't seem to stop doing it. This is why the IBAN is necessary. I've seen this pattern before from others; the belief that if they make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them. --Hammersoft (talk)18:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. It is natural human behaviour to defend oneself when you see accusations. It is not easy not to post, when you read that. I am not fit for Wikipedia to begin with, and I should not have been involved in editing. I am too fragile for it, and I can not behave as a mature adult. All this is very depressing. I hope I have the character to stay away now. And I dont think that if I "make one more post, one more plea, one more diff, that it will somehow sway the day and everything will come out roses and butterflies for them". As you can see above, I take for granted, that there will be an IBAN, and I am worried and sad what that will lead to. I do not think I can say anything to prevent it. I posted above because I am ill and lack self control. I should discontinue my account. I do not belive, that I am suited to be a wikipedia contributor. Please to whatever you wish. If you wish to block my account, then perhaps that would be best. I do not consider myself suitable to work here. That should be evident from everything above. --Aciram (talk)19:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting you are not suitable for editing here. It is evident that you and M.Bitton interacting is not good for the project. You are most welcome to continue to edit the project, but commenting in response to or about M.Bitton is not a good idea. The best strength someone can have in this situation is something you've already said you wanted to do; turn away from them. It's not hard. Just don't respond to them. --Hammersoft (talk)20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in this thread. I involved myself in the content dispute (the article is on my watchlist) roughly around or after the thread, precipitated by the same edits, which I attempted to salvage and revert to preserve some of the descriptions that were removed, which I believe to be on the whole fairly and reliably supported by good academic sources, or at least could be and should be going forward. I now believe that there is an NPOV issue and an omission in the article (perhaps perNebY) so I started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard. The whole thread including the hatted portion might be worth looking at, and I know it takes two to argue, but in terms of the M.Bitton ANI. I wonder if the admins on this thread might review this latest diff alone[12] from M.Bitton. We have been for the last few days discussing at length the content dispute. It is my humble opinion that M.Bitton has been frankly uncollaborative and uncollegial throughout the discussion. I do think this latest message isn't the preferred way to interact.Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I do believe M.Bitton has received warnings for that in the past, but I wonder whether another might be in order. I find his comment to be at least rude and hyperbolic, inaccuracies aside or unwillingness to compromise or misread of the sources, which could be innocent or accidental aside, I don't think that level of rude frustration is merited and I find he has been altogether uncollaborative.Andre🚐22:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do believe that your sudden interest in my edits in an article that you have never edited before this report didn't just happen by coincidence. We've had our differences in the past, and I don't recall a single instance where we actually agreed on something, but I always treated you with respect.

With regard to the diff that you're citing: I suggest they readthe whole discussion (especially, the collapsed part).M.Bitton (talk)23:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haveedited it before[13].Andre🚐23:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected on that part.M.Bitton (talk)23:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps withdraw or strike your implied aspersion that I was following or hounding you? And on always treating me with respect, I couldn't remember other disputes we had, but then I remembered one fromTalk:Jesus/Archive 138[14] in November 24 in which you stated,You will join your friend in the ignored list... forever!. I guess I made it off the list, so I can thank you for that I suppose.Andre🚐23:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to be fair, it was due to the canvassingthat I mentioned above (I just didn't check the timestamp). You're welcome. You actually made it off the list 24 hours later (I tend to forgive and forget).M.Bitton (talk)23:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the message on my talk page was left by Aciram after I edited the article talk thread that he had created[15]. That's why he was thanking me. So it was not canvassing as I had already responded to that thread. But your message there and here both assume bad faith and are incorrect about the timeline.Andre🚐23:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When someone who is about to be the subject of an IBAN contacts someone else to complain about the person that they will no longer be able to interact with or talk about, it's plainWP:CANVASSING. This is my last comment here.M.Bitton (talk)23:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be canvassing because I already had participated, which is the only reason the message was left to begin with. Canvassing would be notifying a selective list about a discussion with an eye toward or a goal of, or what could reasonably construed as a goal of, influencing it. There is absolutely no way that Aciram's messagethanking me for my already stated position in the discussion could be considered canvassing.Andre🚐00:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it's time to request this be closed. Putting it here, I'll list it at Requests for Closure if it isn't closed soonish. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep alive, awaiting closure --Hammersoft (talk)16:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Closing, but I am slow, so it may take an hour or so.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)15:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor too big for britches!Hiobazard (talk/contribs)16:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiobazard: I appreciate you volunteering to close this thread, which definitely needs to be closed soon. However, only admins can place restrictions on editors, which means that only admins can close these discussions with a consensus to do so. Non-admins can only close ANI threads if there is a clear consensus against any sanctions or if an admin has already placed the sanctions but didn't close the thread themself. As such, I have unfortunately had to revert your closure. To be clear, I think you made the right call when closing this, but you don't have the user rights that would allow you to follow through with such a closure and place the sanction. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)16:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with QuicoleJR. Hiobazard, I appreciate your enthusiasm. Please read the following not as criticism, but as supportive advice. An inexperienced editor closing a controversial decision will tend to create more problems, not solve problems. This was a contentious debate. It needs a clear, unequivocal decision backed by experience otherwise it will generate controversy in the future if/when problems arise. --Hammersoft (talk)16:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting closure, keep alive.Chess enjoyer (talk)19:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep alive, awaiting closure. --Hammersoft (talk)19:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Still awaiting closure.Chess enjoyer (talk)19:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ban-evading proxy IP causing disruptions across typhoon articles

WT:WEATHER WP:BADRFC?

Blocked for applying Datevar

219.79.142.128has been blocked for applying Datevar toTyphoon Hato. They're charged for not explaining in the edit summary even after they left a talk page message almost a day before their edits and referred to that talk page message and Datevar explicitlyin the edit summary. How could something like this happen?203.145.95.215 (talk)06:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, when is someone going to make a template that dynamically formats dates and English variants based on user preferences so that everyone can see their preferred variant?216.126.35.228 (talk)13:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually attempted to create auser script to solve that problem, but it's difficult and I can't rely just on myself.EmperorChesser13:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a thingonce upon a time, and in the end it triggeredan Arbcom case.REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We actually used tolink dates in articles? -The Bushranger_{One ping only}18:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait till you seewhere we used to put nav templates...--tony18:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address the limitation of only applying to logged in users, code could be added at reverse proxy/caching sever level to take geolocation into account and use the most common date/eng var for that location by default when user preferences aren't available. That's still not perfect, but close and way better than all of the edit warring and blocks that otherwise occur.216.126.35.228 (talk)01:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like an add-on or an extension at the browser level?[18] Or the browser's own settings?203.145.95.215 (talk)08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would require the reader to take action to install the extension, so people inclined to edit war about variants would still feel compelled to do so on behalf of those without the extension installed. Instead, the community and/or WMF can easily solve this problem for all readers and editors and put and end to the endless arguments.216.126.35.228 (talk)13:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to avoid date-format edit wars is to not participate in them.Onlyyou can preventbikeshedding. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)13:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that the massive number of people who participate in them and the administrators occasionally misunderstand/misapplyWP:MOS. Seems to me fixing the route cause of those disputes and associated confusion would be net positive for the project and give the WMF developers something more productive to do compared to some of the more things they have recently worked on (Visual Editor, Vector22, and Temporary Accounts)216.126.35.228 (talk)02:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree more.203.145.95.205 (talk)07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... is to not participate in them. Those who ignore the rule would in such case dominate. This is in fact happening: Hato, Ragasa, Matmo, Halong.219.79.142.128 (talk)20:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@216.126.35.228 - 13:23, 8 October 2025: So the script gotta be rewritten so that the dates would be shown not only in the display mode but also in the raw mode in the date format of the user's own preferences setting.203.145.95.205 (talk)07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Also, it shouldn't requiring linking. A template should be sufficient without linking or even a regex replacement that doesn't require the use of a template, although I expect we'll still need to use the formats used in sources when quoting them, so a template would be required to differentiate when the user's preferred format replacement is desirable.216.126.35.228 (talk)16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@216.126.35.228: How is that going to be achieved?203.145.95.34 (talk)19:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a datevar template that accepts year, month and day parameters. Have the template dynamically render the date using the format specified by a user preference. Have the preference default to the most prevalent format for the geolocation of the reader's IP address for logged out users and users who haven't set a preference in their profile. You could do the same thing with an engvar template that accepts a single word parameter and that renders the spelling for English variants based on preference or geolocation.216.126.35.247 (talk)05:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that's practical why hasn't it already been done?203.145.95.129 (talk)17:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDK, I'm not a WMF staff member, but the community should insist on it.75.75.121.85 (talk)00:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about something like the date parameter in citation templates that was suggested below? Something that works with the dmy/mdy tags?203.145.95.71 (talk)19:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with dmy/mdy tag suggestion are that 1) that would only render using a single date format per article for everyone reading it based on the value provided for the tag and 2) people will still be inclined to debate/edit war over the tag values. My suggestion allows the same instance of the date to be rendered dynamically in any format based on the user's preference or location. Then there is no need to edit war or even discuss the format, instead just change your own preference to view all dates across the entire project in the format that you prefer if you don't the default for your current geolocation and everyone else gets to do the same thing. Its really not that hard to program either, but it needs to implemented rather deep within the application stack and probably in multiple places due to distributed caching and offloading from the main application servers. So, its probably something the Media Wiki dev team needs to tackle rather than something a normal template editor can do.76.27.164.43 (talk)06:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about something which works with the use dmy/​mdy tags like the date parameters in the citation templates?219.79.142.128 (talk)17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In such case the editwarrings will just be boiled down and condensed to that tag. They'll still continue.203.145.95.205 (talk)07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This could be atWikipedia:Administrative action review?37.186.32.138 (talk)16:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the blocking admin, discospinster, of this discussion.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)19:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be too far a long shot?203.145.95.215 (talk)08:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: please take note ofWP:ADMINACCT. A block you placed has been questioned on very reasonable grounds, you have been explicitly notified about this ANI discussion, but you have edited elsewhere without responding here.Fram (talk)10:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the block, the IP was edit warring and removing content without a proper edit summary (I acknowledge using the wrong template on the talk page)....discospinster_talk14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying in the second and the third edits to remove an extraneous semicolon in a date under the Vietnam section which appeared after my first edit at 00:08 UTC 7 October 2025 (which was properly marked inthe edit summary in the first place) and there happened to be edit conflicts crossing in between. Edit warring? Removing content? Without proper edit summary? Are you genuinely a block admin? You're making it a stronger case should I decide to bring it to AARV per ADMINACCT (and any other relevant policies or guidelines) - which I probably won't as long as it's settled here.219.79.142.128 (talk)16:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you do bring it to aarv, i hope it doesnt go to admin recall because it's proved to be quite controversial due to the snowball tendencies and execution-like nature of said process38.172.49.90 (talk)14:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: If you don't answer it wouldn't be settled here.219.79.142.128 (talk)17:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do....discospinster_talk17:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think aboutthis,Firefangledfeathers andFram?219.79.142.128 (talk)18:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work.Fram (talk)18:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it should work now.219.79.142.128 (talk)18:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Maybe it's wiser to put this on hold given the discussions below (§ Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones) and at VPR.219.79.142.128 (talk)17:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones

The ongoing disruption around Typhoon Matmo makes me think administrators should have extra tools in the topic area. Previously, in 2022, the topic areawas the subject of an arbcom case due to off-wiki coordination around these sorts of topics. Therefore, I propose that administrators are given the ability to use thestandard set ofcommunity topic restrictions tools on articles related totropical cyclones, broadly construed. --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}16:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the same thing a few months ago (albeit applying for all ofweather) and was shot down.^EF⁵16:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that the community would be willing to do it for the smaller topic area of tropical cyclones --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}17:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's "contentious topics", and only Arbcom can designate those. Now if you want to try for something under theWP:General sanctions regime, that could work.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My wording matches the wording of the most recent GS that the community approved (WP:GS/ACAS) --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}17:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a GS proposal needs to be atWP:VPR, not here, per the GS authorization instructions.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. SeeWP:VPR#Community CT for Tropical Cyclones --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}17:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the recent events were all around tropical cyclones and DATERET (and are in fact still ongoing) I would rather say the actual problem in question was essentially (i) a general bias among some aggressive users against unregistered editors, (ii) the tendency among some admins to grant page protections and blocks too easily, again, against unregistered editors, and, most importantly, (iii) the non-compliance attitude among some editors towards established policies and guidelines, and the atmosphere that such policies and guidelines can be ignored or looked down upon and the reasonable expectation among them that they would face no sanctions for doing so.219.79.142.128 (talk)17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What to do now with what's going on around the articles on Matmo, Halong, Ragasa, Hato, etc.

Proposed general warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones

Moved fromWP:VPR § Supplementary proposal: General warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones

 –Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)07:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've done this a few times atAE when a whole talkpage is full of editors misbehaving. I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to do something similar here with these wikiprojects.

The members of WikiProject Weather and WikiProject Tropical Cyclones are collectively reminded:

• Thatwikiprojects are not able to override global consensus, nor to set binding guidelines, except by having their internal guidelines promoted to community guidelines through a well-advertised RfC (see e.g.MOS:LDS).
  • That wikiproject guidelines may contribute to an article's editors' decision to change date or English-variety styles, but that a wikiproject's guidance may not overrideMOS:DATERET orMOS:STYLERET.
  • Thathighly tendentious disputes over objectively minor issues, even where one is right about policy, hurt the Wikipedia project.
• Thatedit-warring is a disruptive behavior, with onlya few general exceptions, which do not include merely being right.
  • Thatthe exception for reverting sockpuppetry only applies if the editor is in fact in violation ofWP:SOCK, that someone making such an edit should clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP is, and that editors make such reverts at their own peril in cases where the new account/IP has not yet been blocked; editors who incorrectly invoke this exception may be blocked for edit-warring orpersonal attacks if an administrator does not judge the misidentification to be reasonable.
  • ThatWP:BLAR generally prohibits blanking and redirecting a page once this action has been reverted once, and that BLAR-warring is a particularly disruptive form of edit-warring.
• ThatWP:AIV andWP:RFPP should not be used to request vandal-blocks against constructive editors (even misguided ones) orto privilege registered editors over IPs, and that abuse of these or other administrative processes may lead to blocks.

--Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)03:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to in any statement or message to recognize and acknowledge the work that these groups do particularlyWP:TROP. For example as part of my research I enjoyed this paper about their work.

Jemielniak, Dariusz; Rychwalska, Agnieszka; Talaga, Szymon; Ziembowicz, Karolina (2021)."Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones: The most successful crowd-sourced knowledge project with near real-time coverage of extreme weather phenomena".Weather and Climate Extremes.33 100354.Bibcode:2021WCE....3300354J.doi:10.1016/j.wace.2021.100354.

Dr vulpes(Talk)03:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think proposing a warning strays intoWP:ANI territory and away from the reasoning for why community general sanctions are hosted at VPPRO these days, and would suggest it be moved there. The mandatory notification requirement is relevant here.Izno (talk)17:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldsupport this, but Izno is correct that this should be at the ANI thread. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}02:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formalized support post-move -The Bushranger_{One ping only}17:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and I think adding the bit @Dr vulpes brought up would be good. No objection to moving this portion of the discussion to ANI.voorts (talk/contributions)03:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Thread moved. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)07:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This may have to be extended to the individuals involved. For a few of these individuals enforcement action may also be needed (just look at what'sreported above).219.79.142.128 (talk)12:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Andfurther above.219.79.142.128 (talk)13:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion appears to have been going on for a week, we might need to do something to resolve this persistent issue once and for all.98.235.155.81 (talk)13:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For so long as there are still people who disagree and ignore this.219.79.142.128 (talk)13:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there some editors who aren't part of either wikiproject who you feel needed to be told? If not, I'm not sure there's a clear advantage to naming specific editors even more when there has been limited commentary on even the general proposal. As for enforcement action likewise considering how old this entire thread is with by now few seeming willing to participate, I'm not sure it would be productive to start discussing that especially if the community CT passes so it'll be easier for admins to take action for future misbehaviour.Nil Einne (talk)10:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally agree with what was said here, maybe the pages being affected by vandalism may need to be indefinitely admin only protected to prevent future issues.98.235.155.81 (talk)10:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ... protected to prevent future issues Ragasa already illustrates why this doesn't work.219.79.142.128 (talk)21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite many of those involved, and especiallythose who've rejected AN/I decisions and consensus outright haven't signed up as members of either of the projects. And, no, the warning has to be extended to such individuals even if they have signed up on those WP pages as participants.219.79.142.128 (talk)21:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree.203.145.95.34 (talk)19:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree.203.145.95.34 (talk)19:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I just finished reading through this entire thread. I'd suggest changing "over IPs" to "over unregistered editors" as insurance for when TAs inevitably arrive. Other than that,support as necessary to make it clear to these WikiProjects that they are being disruptive and that the disruption needs to stop. These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, but some might need topic bans from changing the ENGVAR and DATEVAR of articles of this keeps up.QuicoleJR (talk)13:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These editors do good work, as pointed out by Dr vulpes above, ... There are unfortunately bad ones who refuse outright to observe MOSs, or AN/I consensus and decisions.219.79.142.128 (talk)03:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit points, with no opinion about whether this would be a useful message to post:

• The first bullet point would ideally link to theWP:PROPOSAL process. "Edit-warring" in the second main bullet point should not be hyphenated. Editors who "clearly state what the sockmaster account/IP" may be in violation of the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts. And it sounds like it might be worth reminding editors thatWikipedia:Vandalism does not involve someone whoactually hurts Wikipedia (in the opinion of the speaker), but instead is a claim about someone who isintentionallytrying to hurt Wikipedia.WhatamIdoing (talk)15:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the principle that we avoid tying IP addresses (or temp account names) to registered accounts ← There is no such principle, except regarding what functionaries (or soon TAIVs) can say based on private data. To the contrary, an editor accusing an IP (or soon TA) of being a sock of a registered usermust name the account, or else it is anaspersion. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)15:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you could make a colourable argument that such a requirement flows implicitly by combining relevant policies, but is it also expressly stated somewhere that I am unaware of?SnowRise ^{let's rap}04:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. Frankly, the community is at least a decade overdue on movingWP:Advice pages to it's own namespace and promoting the policy much more broadly as part of our onboarding processes. While the situation has improved by leaps and bounds over the years, many wikiprojects remain active hotbeds for groups of editors to form idiosyncratic non-guidelines among their members and then aggressively try to to apply them to every article they perceive to be within their remit, in violations ofWP:PROPOSAL andWP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Even the number of situations that get out of control merely because of mistaken but good-faith misapprehensions about the scope and limitations of wikiproject authority is non-trivial.
  But until the community actually gets serious about getting around to making this principle of consensus formation a more broadly understood piece of policy, we're going to continue to see some remaining shadow of the issues that used to arise more regularly before ArbCom and the community codified the Advice pages standard, and we'll need to rely on more piecemeal solutions to those flare-ups. Any time a particular project starts to give rise to this highly disruptive and tendentious combination of rules cruft created outside of process and tag teaming to enforce said "guidelines", a notice like this is the least of what is appropriate.SnowRise ^{let's rap}03:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentionedabove many of those involved in such acts have not signed up as members in either of the projects. I'd say that has been farther than just localconsensus.219.79.142.128 (talk)21:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While there's likely more than just these involved editors that need this restriction, as noted by 219.79.142.128 just above me, I think this is a meaningful and useful proposal. Too many topic specific Wikiprojects have been trying to fully control articles in their topic area, often against existing policy and MOS rules. These little fiefdom's absolutely need to be broken up. The fact that there are admins directly colluding in this case to help prop up policy violations is extra disturbing.Silverseren^C17:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate claim

User:Dimadick, Categories, and Wikiprojects

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

First of all: Categories & Wikiprojects are a very silly and avoidable reason to go to ANI. I've avoided doing so for years because such minor matters are Not Worth It. Unfortunately it seems there is no other choice.

Short version: There was some edit warring back and forth on categories & Wikiprojects (ex:diff,diff, or the full history of the recently createdredirect talk page, all long after Dimadick knew this was contested from old edits ). I sought to defuse with a talk page query about a way to decide the matter. I offered to hold a consensus discussion on Dimadick's edits (diff), and have offered in the past as well (diff), and I'm even flexible on where. He's refused both times; see thisdiff reply. The second time, I directly said that if he's not willing to comply with community consensus and isn't interested in what guidelines say, the only other option is ANI. He directly said "Absolutely not." (diff) So... I guess the only option is ANI to convince Dimadick that there might be a problem with his edits, since there's no point in holding a discussion if he isn't interested in the result.

Longer version: Dimadick has an extremely expansive view of what counts as a good idea for a category and what counts as category inclusion. (See also the giant list of CFD notifications onhis talk page). Essentially, he sees Categories as something like the "What Links Here" tool. If it's linked to in the article, it's going in the category on the article's topic. Not trying to canvass, but seeWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_7#Category:Apocalypse_of_Peter for a recently-created category where he just added in things that are related topics in the sense of Wikilinks, but absolutely not subtopics. This isn't unique though, this is common to other questionable categories Dimadick has made (e.g. seetwo separate talk page discussions (CTRL-F for the other one) on the various eponymous categories he's created and added everything vaguely related to.diff - here he says that for categories on military personnel like generals, every single battle they were in should be in them, and (diff) the opinion of the MILHIST project doesn't matter as "There is no such thing as overcategorization. It always reminds me ofDon Quixote attacking imaginary giants."

Similarly, he also has an extremely expansive idea of what counts for Wikiproject scope. If there's anything even vaguely kinda sorta related, it should have that Wikiproject attached - he's added WikiProject Sociology to articles on nearly any topic, for one simple example. Unfortunately, many Wikiprojects are abandoned and thus don't have people who are part of them to point out that the scope is notthat broad, but sometimes it is not really that puzzling. Furthermore, he's completely unable to take hints when people revert him that he should either slow down or discuss; instead he just either edit wars or tries again later, often successfully.

Some examples in the past:

• diff Adding WikiProject Crime, Disaster management, Law Enforcement, and Sociology to amassacre. This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits, this was done by the government itself, and it wasn't a "disaster" to be managed like an earthquake. And Law Enforcement? The cops aren't going to arrest their own government's people. Utter lack of understanding of what these terms mean. He of course waited a long time then… added all these back in (diff, which I briefly reverted again after noticing while researching this ANI report, but then I self-reverted so as not to fan the flames).
• diff Arguing a character should be part of WikiProject Korea simply because she's Korean in-setting, adding it in twice until finally backing down after having had to explain the matter in-depth on the talk page, and failing to engage on the merits in said discussion. (Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin is very unusual, especially when the author is from elsewhere - it's a Japanese game produced for a worldwide market.)
• diff,diff]. An extremely instructive diff. He took a war that happened in Judea and added WikiProjects Iran, Greece, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, as well as Sociology and Politics. Why? Because per edit summary "Added the WikiProjects which cover the Seleucid Empire", which was a participant in the revolt, and these are some modern countries that had territory in the old Seleucid Empire. Do I need to explain how crazy this is? It'd be like adding Wikiprojects for all 50 US States to the "Iraq War" article, because the US was a participant in the Iraq War, and these were subdivisions of the US. But even worse, because at least Maine / California / etc. are contemporary with the US - Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire!
• history Just look at all the WikiProjects here atCategory:Paintings of the Ascension of Christ. See, Jesus was in the Ancient Near East (well not really according to our ownAncient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians and considers the Roman period out of scope, but eh, close enough) so obviously all paintings should also be in that category as well even if they were made in 1700s Holland. And let's add every single taskforce of Christianity (Despite this not being restricted to, say, Anglicanism) and stuff like Wikiproject Death (despite this being paintings of the Ascension, which is very much not a death, and not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway). This is far too over-inclusive.

These are just four instructive examples. In practice, I don't agree with Dimadick on most of his Wikiproject edits, but at least some are more contestable.

Now, if editors don't agree with my personal categorization preferences or standards, that's fine. I'm happy to adjust based on consensus and I suspect I'm stricter than most on what really qualifies for category / WikiProject inclusion - I want a strong link. But I'm also happy to live & let live for borderline inclusions, so I've never had a problem with any other editor with broader inclusion criteria. The problem is Dimadick is extremely far from the borderline cases and off in extremely tenuous connections, and has openly said in the diff above there's no way to convince him otherwise, he's gonna do his thing. This is the silliest possible reason to get sanctioned, but if he isn't going to take the hint that he doesn't dictate how categorization works on Wikipedia, then something needs to be done.SnowFire (talk)04:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never agreed with SnowFire on anything, and I don't expect I will ever agree with him/her. Lets see about some of his laundy list of complains:

• • They argue that biographic categories about generals must not include their battles and the campaigns which they led. Long after we have had a category tree aboutCategory:Battles by individual person involved and a scope for its expansion.
  • "This is beyond insulting. This wasn't done by bandits"Massacres are never performed bybandits to begin with. Per the main article on the topic, they involve "mass killing of civilians" by "political actors". The article helpfully offerssynonymous terms, such aswar crime,pogrom, andextrajudicial killing.
  • "Categorization of fictional character by that fictional character's origin" Because the depiction of a nationality, anethnic group or representation of any kind do not matter ... according to SnowFire's peculiar reasoning. And I suppose we can forget about inconvenient topics suchWhitewashing in film orrace in horror films which cover such representations.
  • "Iraq did not exist yet in the era of the Seleucid Empire" Your point being? We have categories onCategory:Ancient history of Iraq,Category:Medieval history of Iraq,Category:Iraq under the Abbasid Caliphate, etc. Nearly every modern country covershistorical regions with lengthy histories and the category system reflects that.
  • "not what Wikiproject Death is about anyway" Again, you have no idea whatWikipedia:WikiProject Death is about. Per its scope, it covers Death-related "Customs: Funerals, burials, green burials, cremations, pan-death movement, home funerals" and Death-related "Religious: Afterlife, reincarnation, resurrection".
  • "our own Ancient Near East article which usually closes the period with the Persians" WhichWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East never did. Its main page currently covers topics on theFirst Jewish–Roman War and theSiege of Jerusalem (70 CE). OurTimeline of Middle Eastern history points out that nothing really ended or changed with the Persians, and theList of kings of Babylon ends with the Parthians in the early 3rd century CE.
  • And as forquote mining my reply, the full text was: "Absolutely not. I have seen so-called "consensus discussions" being decided by two or three persons playing tag-teams, and never bothering to inform anyone else."Dimadick (talk)05:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you accused me of quote mining despite me linking to the full diff of your comments: Okay, soare you willing to go with what a consensus discussion comes up with (despite saying "absolutely not", which I thought was the relevant part of the reply)? Or if one is held and you dislike the result, will you just say that it didn't count? And where do you come up with "never bothering to inform anyone else" as relevant - you were being informed right there? It's not like I was proposing a secret discussion... this fundamentally misunderstands what a consensus discussion even is.
    • As for your other comments: To be clear, these are all arguments you could have made elsewhere, but the issue is currently your behavior more so than the finer points of Wikiproject scopes. The problem is that you've said you can't be convinced otherwise because you're somehow "right". That isn't how this works. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which means working with what the consensus says, and if the consensus says not to tag Wikiproject Death onto everything that is vaguely afterlife related, then you need to abide by that no matter how convincing you think your arguments are. And it shouldn't require others to plead and coax for you to explain your edits on talk pages - you need to explain your edits as you make them, and take notice when they get pushback rather than just wait awhile then re-do your edits (aka a slow-motion edit war). I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope - you've never ever editedWikipedia talk:WikiProject Death. You're not a participant at all in it, just throwing tons of stuff under the classification whether it's merited or not, burying the actually relevant articles.
    • As far as massacres, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. First of all,Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management probably shouldn't even exist (it's an inactive project with few left to define its scope), but it's clearly about stuff like responding to hurricanes. It's not about wars and oppression and the like. If you don't believe me, ask a friend, or just read the page. If you can't figure out such a basic scope check, I don't have confidence for you to puzzle out the scope of any Wikiproject.SnowFire (talk)05:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I'm not sure why you're so certain about WP:DEATH's scope" Because I'm not blind. It has a very detailed description of its scope (with examples) in its primary page.Dimadick (talk)07:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      (admits to being confused himself at the premise that one has to be an active participant in a WikiProject in order to understand what the WikiProject is about. Do we require that a reader edit Wikipedia as a prerequisite to understanding article content?) Ravenswing08:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • Not the intent of what I wrote. No, of course not, but Dimadick's grandiose statement made it sound like he was some sort of unique expert on the scope of Wikiproject Death; I solely pointed this out to note he was not. So no, the argument is not that he isn't a member, but rather that he has an extraordinarily wide interpretation of its scope and has said that there's no way to convince him otherwise.SnowFire (talk)18:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had several run-ins with Dimadick on the subject of their individualistic approach to categorisation. User has a radically inclusive approach to categorisation and seems to treat categories as if they were "tags" (they explicitly stated on their talk page during one of our discussions "Categorization is not hierarchical", in direct contravention ofWP:CATSPECIFIC: "Since all categories form part of a tree-like hierarchy, do not add categories to pages as if they are tags."). As an extreme example I offerthis edit, in which the user addedCleavage (breasts) toCategory:Çatalhöyük, on the grounds that breast fetishism apparently formed part of the rites of the people who lived in the archaeological site of Çatalhöyük (the reference to this practice in the article has since been deleted). My personal beef has mainly been the editor's insistence on adding geographical and historical sites in the UK to eponymous categories for historic figures who have peripheral, non-hierarchical connections to the site (e.g. addingGodstow Lock toCategory:Lewis Carroll andCategory:Alice Liddell on the grounds that they sometimes visited,Crook o'Lune toCategory:Mary, Queen of Scots andCategory:Eleanor of Castile because a well called Queen's Well nearby may have legendary associations with one or other of the queens). Usually, the article for the person in question makes no mention of the site that User:Dimadick has added to their eponymous category. Attempts to reach an understanding have not been successful and Dimadick seems insistent that their approach to categorisation is entirely uncontroversial in the face of evidence to the contrary.Dave.Dunford (talk)17:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the article for the person in question makes no mention" Naturally. Part of the the need for a categorization in the first place is that the main articles for nearly every person and location do not mention large parts of their history. For an example, the main article onMarana, Arizona fails to mention any of the several articles we have on crimes in the town, aviation accidents in the town, sports events in the town, or even buildings and organizations in the town. I grouped these articles together inCategory:Marana, Arizona without making changes to the main article. Several of the main articles on British prime ministers fail to mention legislation which they created (both before and during their terms), historic houses which they owned, lived in or outright built, the books that they wrote and published, their wives and mistresses, etc. But we do have articles on these topics that can be covered in their eponymous categories.Dimadick (talk)07:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if you think that the article about Marana should mention these incidents, add some referenced text to the article that makes the connection, or edit the See also section or something; messing about with categories is not the right way to achieve what you're trying to do. Categorisation is simply not a sensible way to make context-free, non-hierarchical, bidirectional connections between two topics where each is a minor aspect of the other. There are lots of things about Godstow Lock that are nothing to do with Lewis Carroll, and there are lots of things about Lewis Carroll that are nothing to do with Godstow Lock: ergo, categorisation in either direction is inappropriate. Alternatively, createCategory:Places visited by Lewis Carroll and addGodstow Lock orCategory:People who visited Godstow Lock and addLewis Carroll. Both will probably (and rightly IMO) be reverted asWP:NONDEFINING though.Dave.Dunford (talk)09:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the articles you'd added toCategory:Marana, Arizona and picked outTropical Storm Claudia (1962) at random. A textbook case of your unconventional (and I would say inappropriate) approach to categorisation. Storm Claudia affected several places, one of them Marana, though the storm article suggests that the main impact was felt elsewhere and that the storm had dissipated by the time it reached Marana, so the connection is already loose: "The storm had dissipated, and the remnants of Claudia had caused much rain over Mexico (Baja California), California (mainly Santa Rosa), and Arizona (mainly Marana and Sells)." Storm Claudia is not mentioned once in theMarana, Arizona article, so its impact on and relevance to the town is clearly fairly minor. And again, there is no hierarchical relationship: Storm Claudia impacted several places, and Marana has experienced several wider events (including other tropical storms) over the years. This is classic "tagging through categorisation", which is explicitly deprecated atWP:CATSPECIFIC. If you can't see the problem, I don't know where we go from here.Dave.Dunford (talk)13:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem beyond your own reading comprehension. The main article for a location, person, book, etc. is not a guideline for a category or its contents. Many of these articles are extremely lacking in detail or focus on irrelevant topics.Dimadick (talk)14:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that kind of response is precisely why SnowFire has had to resort to ANI. If an article is lacking detail or focus, edit the article – don't try to use categorisation to fix it. If you think Storm Claudia should be mentioned in the Marana article, then mention Storm Claudia in the Marana article (with an appropriate citation). Why are you so determined to die on this particular hill???Dave.Dunford (talk)14:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because changes in the main article have no reflection in a category. Though to be honest, I had not thought that If I see problems in an article I should fix them myself.Dimadick (talk)16:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWP:DEFINING. To use the example above,Tropical Storm Claudia (1962) is not defined by its association withMarana, Arizona, and Marana, Arizona is not defined by its assocaition with TropicaL Storm Claudia. This isentirely inappropriate categorization, and you neednot to make such categorization. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}00:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Marana, Arizona is not defined by its assocaition with TropicaL Storm Claudia" Come again? I am talking about the near destruction of the town (twice) not mentioned in the town's history, while we have unsourced information onCold War-related military facilities in Marana.Dimadick (talk)08:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please read (and understand)WP:DEFINING, specifically the following sentence:A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. Godstow Lock is categorised by being a lock on a particular river in a particular place; it isnot defined as being "a place that Lewis Carroll once visited", which is a peripheral detail. Marana, Arizona, is defined as a place in Arizona; it not defined as "the place where the tail-end of a tropical storm occurred in 1962", which is (again) a peripheral detail. I think that this gets to the heart of the problems multiple users have with your approach to categorisation.Dave.Dunford (talk)09:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those kind of so-called "peripheral details" are the ones bringing actual notability to an article. The ones that a reader or editor would be likely to search for. If Godstow is yet another lock in a random river, with no connection to historical figures or events, why does it have an article in the first place? Because the river is never defining. If Marana just exists, without any connection to any of the historic events connected to it, why is it notable? I don't typically go searching for "a place in Arizona" or any other location in a map. I go searching for the locations of notable murders, battles, accidents, etc.Dimadick (talk)11:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godstow Lock has an article because somebody thought it merited one (as with most, if not all, the other locks and bridges on the Thames). Marana has an article because it's a notable settlement by the notability norms of Wikipedia. But none of this case-by-case quibbling has anything to do with the point in hand: the articles and the categories you are putting them into fail the hierarchical, defining requirement of Wikipedia's long-established categorisation norms, as numerous people have pointed out to you here and on your talk page. In short:categories are not tags. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you are singularly failing to collaborate.Dave.Dunford (talk)12:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is a collaborative project" Were you are supposed to do your best to improve it, which is what I am trying to do, year in and year out. All I see is more deletions of useful categories, and more underpopulated categories. Those "long-established categorisation norms" are based on a vary basic principle explained right at the top ofWikipedia:Categorization: "the system allows readers to browse and efficiently locate related topics." Something which any main article can't and won't do, and something which requires actual effort to create and populate new categories. And as always a defining characteristic for an article is not location x, or town x. The "defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to". In other words, what the sourced content is about, and not trivial characteristics asCategory:Locks on the River Thames. That is the job of a list, not a category.Dimadick (talk)20:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on doing your own thing, regardless of how many people are politely suggesting you're doing it wrong and asking you to stop is not "collaboration". The location of an entity is probably itsmost defining feature, yet you are claiming the opposite: "a defining characteristic for an article is not location x, or town x". "Locks on the River Thames" is not a "trivial characteristic" of Godstow Lock: it's literally the most important thing there is to say about it. If someone asks "what is Godstow Lock?" a sensible answer would be "it's a lock on the River Thames near Oxford". Nobody in thei right mind would say "it's a place that Lewis Carroll visited" and claim to have defined the place. If someone says "tell me about Marana" a sensible person would say "it's a place in Arizona"; they wouldn't say "well, it's a place that was affected by Tropical Storm Claudia in 1962". I don't know how many different ways I can make the same point.Dave.Dunford (talk)08:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it's literally the most important thing there is to say about it" As a reader, when one tells you "a lock on the River Thames", does this sound like something you want to read or to search about? There many other items of its kind, and it would never stand out. Even ourWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section explicitly states that we must "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". What is this location's history, its impact?Dimadick (talk)13:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you're nitpicking and arguing case by case, when the issue is one of broad principle. Categories are for organisation; they're not a tool for "engagement", or about making articles "stand out". And - yet again - you're ignoring the point about the defining and hierarchical aspects of categories (as specified in all the relevant guidelines and understood by the rest of us). Why are you so determined to make yourself unpopular by insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong? I really don't want to come over as a bully or tell you what you should be doing, but your behaviour is frankly disruptive. There's plenty of useful work to do here, so why waste your time swimming against the tide and fighting this losing battle. Why not just spend your time improving articles, instead of this weird crusade to misapply categories and Wikiprojects? Your life would be so much easier if you just followed the guidelines.Dave.Dunford (talk)22:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought. Putting an article in a category should imply that the subject of an articleis part of oris a member of oris an example of the category. Thus:

• Godstow Lock is a member ofLocks on the River Thames
• Marana, Arizona, is an example ofTowns in Pima County, Arizona
• Twelfth Night is a member ofShakespearean comedies

These relationships are hierarchical and by definition one-directional. They cannot be reversed. An entity is part of a category, but the category is not part of the entity. The type of connections you are making are bi-directional, non-hierarchical and reversible. You could just as logically have putLewis Carroll in a hypotheticalCategory:Godstow Lock (if it existed) as you can putGodstow Lock inCategory:Lewis Carroll. In short,categories imply inclusion, not just association.Dave.Dunford (talk)12:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to wall of text too much as I think the above examples should be sufficient to show Dimadick's poor judgment (randomly adding Category:Revenge to his created cat on a book?!), but as an update, this is a continuing problem. And it's a matter of specifically user behavior (and thus appropriate for ANI rather than a vanilla content dispute). See these diffs fromafter the ANI report atAncient Roman: Power of Dark Side (category addition,my revert with explanation,revert by Dimadick (side note: this was 100% Dimadick checking my contribution history, which is fine, but this is avery obscure article I can't imagine finding any other way). I've left it as is to avoid an edit war, but Dimadick does not take hints from explanations in edit summaries, requiring spending way way more time writing out why a category is a bad addition than Dimadick spends in sprinkling unneeded categories everywhere.
• But let's write out exactly why this addition ofCategory:Video games about slavery is incorrect anyway, for fun. Back in the day, there used to be categories with "Media featuring XYZ", and these were generally deleted or redefined at CFD asWP:CATDEFINING grounds - they weren't defining characteristics. Their replacement was generally "Mediaabout XYZ". SoCategory:Video games about pirates is fine (where this is a major focus), but simplyCategory:Video games with pirates for any video game with a pirate somewhere in it would fail CATDEFINING. (OrCategory:Television about alien abduction /Category:Television series about alien visitations, but not something likeCategory:Television series with aliens.) This is an acceptable compromise. There will always be some borderline cases, but if the dispute was over borderline cases, I'd have let sleeping dogs lie. The dispute is over overturning the above system I just described by making "Category about XYZ" into "Category with XYZ" due to Dimadick's belief that categories / Wikiprojects are just "anything vaguely related or wikilinkable." This isn't an issue fixable atWP:CFD, because the category itself is fine - it's the incorrect additions that are problematic. So... user behavior. Anyway I guarantee that Dimadick is not an expert on this game, because practically nobody is (it's very obscure and I'm the editor who wrote the mini-plot summary Dimadick is using). And this game is just a gameinvolving slavery as one tiny plot point. Not the focus at all. But it doesn't matter for Dimadick, because he turns all categories into their broadest possible form, against the category inclusion guidelines I just described above, changing this valid category implicitly into the invalidCategory:Video games with slavery somewhere.
• I've written this out as a demonstration of one specific case during which there's no question Dimadick knew his additions were under scrutiny, but understand that a huge amount of Dimadick's edits are similarly problematic, and there isn't time or need to write a tome explaining why every time. But trying to revert him doesn't work either, because he just edit wars his versions back in, as demonstrated in the diffs above.SnowFire (talk)03:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your contact is problematic. "any video game with a pirate" In other words, you think that games withpirateprotagonists are irrelevant toCategory:Video games about pirates, just as you think that video games withslave protagonists are irrelevant toCategory:Video games about slavery. You don't seem to be even reading the plot sections.Dimadick (talk)08:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimadick, as I already stated above,I wrote that article. Check the history. I'm the one who wrote that plot section, let alone read it. We both agree that slavery is anelement in the game, but I'm arguing we need something a little more than that to qualify as a category inclusion. And yes, it's actually possible to have a pirate protagonist and still have the game not qualify as being "about piracy", if they stop being a pirate in the first 15 minutes and isn't a major theme afterward.SnowFire (talk)20:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my own issues with Dimadick's views on Wikiprojects and categorization schemes but as one of the active members of WP Crime, he was correct in adding WP Crime to that article (though not law or law enforcement which are common disputes). We have had many discussions on scope, and the consensus was massacres are in scope no matter who commits them. I don't see how that would possibly be offensive. Murder is a crime. Some of his other inclusions, like onEcofascism, confuse me, (fascism is not itself a crime, even if it inspired crimes - so has communism) so I removed that.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"fascism is not itself a crime" Per the main article, a key element of fascism is "fascist violence" byparamilitaries. Even before theMarch on Rome, Italian fascists had "attacked the headquarters of socialist and Catholic labour unions", they had used violence "to take control of public buildings and trains" and to seize control over a number of cities inNorthern Italy. Also as part of the lead on Fascism, Fascist ideology considerspolitical violence to be both necessary and desirable, "as means to national rejuvenation".Dimadick (talk)06:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Violence is also not itself a crime and WP Crime is not WP Violence. All war is violence, but after discussions on this the wikiproject consensus is that war is not in scope for WP Crime. That people commit crimes for an ideology does not make the ideology in scope. Unless it involves a criminal investigation or terminology (like, say, massacre, or terrorism) as itsmain aspect it should not generally be tagged with the project, without a more compelling reason. More tangential aspects are also not included. And even then, if it was, it is still a problematic approach to tag, then, every subtopc of that main topic with the project even when it had no relevance. That is not what Wikiprojects are for. I consider this approach to WikiProject tagging to be somewhat questionable.PARAKANYAA (talk)11:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These continued arguments are making me wonder if it is, speakingfrankly, aWP:CIR issue. Dimadick, whenyou hold one position, and virtually everyone else is telling you otherwise, it might behoove you to consider that it might be you who are wrong. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}17:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat strange reply, PARAKANYAA.Political violence within a state does not equate to war. The helpful examples of such violence in the lead of the main article include kidnappings, assassinations, terrorist attacks, and torture. The article on political violence is currently covered byWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography but is unsurprisingly excluded byWikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Going beyond theinterwar period, have you noticed that modernneo-Nazi organizations such asGolden Dawn have created their owndeath squads?^[1] The ideology itself tends to include justifications for violence, includingvigilante violence.^[2]Dimadick (talk)13:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article on political violence heavily involves and revolves around crimes and crime prevention. It does not then follow that every topic onwiki that involves political violence is in the scope of the project; there are legal instances of political violence. You seem to believe that if one article is tagged with a wikiproject, then every article that involves that topic is then in scope for that wikiproject. This is not how this works for any project.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion seems to have died down, but Dimadick hasn't shown any sign of backing down. The whole point of bringing this here was to avoid an edit war, but I'm going to tentatively do some reverts as Dimadick's categorization not being in line with categorization guidelines. I'd really rather not have this dispute settled by who is the most diligent in reverting everything, though.SnowFire (talk)01:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how hesitant people are when it comes to an editor as prolific and experienced asDimadick. However, I see above four different users disagreeing with them and providing very good reasons for their disagreements, no one agreeing with Dimadick, and no appearance of any movement by Dimadick towards improvement.WP:CIR was brought up, though this appears also to includeWP:IDHT. To minimize disruption while allowing Dimadick to continue to be a productive editor, I propose a community-imposed ban from categories and categorization. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Bumping thread for 5 days. — rsjaffe 🗣️22:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. — rsjaffe 🗣️17:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support multiple editors have raised valid concerns over Dimadick's approach to categorisation and there has been no sign that has been taken on board and the issues are improving. Support TBAN to minimise disruption as this does seem to be a case ofWP:IDHT.GothicGolem29 (talk)17:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There hasn't been any recognition that their approach to categorization isn't supported by the community.Schazjmd (talk)18:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sometimes prolific and experienced editors have That One Issue that they simply can't wrap themselves around, and this unfortunately appears to be Dimadick's. This would be an appropriate method to resolve the obvious issues presented. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}21:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Dimadick'sWP:CIR/WP:IDHT-laden exchanges in the above section. Enough.DoubleCross (‡)03:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is really regrettable, as it's an area that Dimadick has been heavily active in for many years. Sadly, I see no reasonable alternative given Dimadick's completely unbending adherence to an interpretation ofWP:CATEGORY that's at odds with every other editor here. There has been plenty of time for second thoughts and to agree to fall in line with consensus, but evidently that's not what the editor is prepared to do.MichaelMaggs (talk)15:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per report above.SnowFire (talk)16:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making a placeholder comment to prevent archiving.SnowFire (talk)19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my arguments above.Dave.Dunford (talk)09:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Recalcitrance is unhelpful in a collaborative place.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)21:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil provocative and edit-warring behaviour by User:Freedoxm

• Freedoxm (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• Chek Chue (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
• Talk:Chek Chue (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

tl;dr I believe Freedoxm is acting provocatively (and even borderline attacking) toward editors with different opinions, regarding their failure to produce references and citations for a page move. Freedoxm also engaged in edit-warring behaviour when challenged/doubted.

--LuciferianThomas07:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe my actions wereWP:UNCIVIL, probably a little bit harsh, but I don't understand or get what this ANI incident is trying to obtain, reach, or achieve. I'm not trying to attack or offend anyone. I sincerely apologize on the page move I conducted on July. I admit, I did not check the sources. Onan aggressive comment, it was meant to be fair until the page move ends. Three reverts in a 48-hour period also isn't consideredWP:EDITWARRING. I wish to not be involved, but it seems like if I don't, I'll be put at risk of being blocked. I defended my actions because no one objected to my page move-all the way until now, when I was pinged. Though I express regret on actions done months ago, I still believe, that in my defense, that this ANI report might've been exagerrated in a narrative. I don't see why or how Ifailed to focus on the issue- I was only asking the IP to remove it. The IP refused toWP:DROPTHESTICK, ignored my recommendations (see talk page of Chek Chue/Stanley) twice. All I wish is for the ANI discussion to quickly end inconclusively with no result, and no consequences. With the conclusion of this paragraph, I will be WP:DROPPINGTHESTICK as well to prevent further dispute, as it is against my sole will to repeatedly get involved in such discussion. I encourage the user who started this request to also WP:DROPTHESTICKFreedoxm (talk·contribs)08:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Repeatedly rudeness by calling others "ridiculous", when people are just trying to point out what you did wrong, is clearly uncivil.
2. You do not appear to be any apologetic up until I reported you here. Whatever points I wrote here regarding your inappropriate page move have also been made by the anon editor and I on the talk page, yet you consistently refused to acknowledge your mistake until you are reported to here.
3. If you at all initially actuallyfocused on the issue, you would have realised your previous page move was a mistake (like you just did here), and you could have reverted your own page move and edits without even the need of bureaucratic processes to move the page back.
4. As previously said, three reverts in 48 hours isn't a violationof the bright-line 3RR, but asWP:EW clearly states,[t]he three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring",and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Since your reverts are not on vandalism or content breaking overriding rules ("exemptions") and that you refused to discuss or acknowledge sources at all and still reverted, your edits clearly constitute edit warring.
5. And you definitely did fail to focus on the issue there, you asked the IP to give you 20 examples of you being wrong, the IP provided it, and then you only focused on the vandal template and never responded to the 20 examples of you being wrong again.
6. You personally do know what a move request is, yet you cannot guarantee that an anon editor knows what exactly a move request is, nor that they know how to start one. Assuming that the IP is "ignoring your recommendations" is also basically just assuming bad faith.

LuciferianThomas08:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the note on dropping the stickedited in while I was typing, I do not intend to keep bringing up any dead debates. You still fail to acknowledge that you made mistakes in various aspects. The first time you say you are dropping the stick at 20:53 UTC (14 Oct), you came back torevert my edit without provocation (I didn't ping you in the talk page as you stated you are removing yourself from the discussion), and proceeded in calling me ridiculous in the talk page. What you are doing is beating alive horse, dropping the stick running, and telling the horse not to chase at you. You also do not get to be aggressive at someone,tell them you are reporting them to ANI, then complain when someone else reports you to ANI for your behaviour.LuciferianThomas08:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than an exaggeration as Freedoxm had claimed, what LuciferianThomas submitted was an understatement. E.g. Freedoxmhad reverted, just for the sake of blocking other people's edits, the correction of the wrong Yale romanisation, which was not itself in anyway related to the page move. The situation could have best handled with himself undoing the move since no further page move discussion has ever been necessary in such an obvious case.203.145.95.161 (talk)08:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That I must say, you never actually mentioned the incorrectness of the romanisation adopted in either edit summaries or talk page discussions. I do not agree that this would be a good claim of wrong-doing on their end.LuciferianThomas09:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that your edits directly reverting their reverts were also clear edit warring behaviour.LuciferianThomas09:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that would be too minor to be spelt out and no one would have expected an edit warrior would be acting like that.

And if I counted correctly I only reverted him once on the mass replacement of Stanley to Chek Chue in the article content.203.145.95.161 (talk)09:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume the other user knows Cantonese romanisation, even I don't know Yale either. It read out fine (even that it is clearly not the correct place name in English context), and it didn't appear to be an issue.LuciferianThomas09:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will.

Btw, a correction: I reverted twice.203.145.95.161 (talk)09:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think you’re correcting? The definition of edit-warring is “repeatedly reverting”, and twice is certainly repeatedly. (Actually readWP:3RR if you don’t believe me.)173.79.19.248 (talk)11:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that. And yes I agree not even once should be done if the situation allows. It's a correction because I thought that was done only once. It turns out that was actually done twice.203.145.95.161 (talk)12:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example would be that he went torequest for page protection of the talk page.203.145.95.161 (talk)09:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandon.203.145.95.161 (talk)11:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedoxm You need to be more careful with your language. It takes two to edit-war, but in this case you made abold move and an IP editor objected. The onus is then on you to revert the move and, if you disagree with the IP editor's reasoning, open anRM. (Now that an RM is open, though, you should leave the article where it is.)

You have apologized for the bold move (which is not something you need to apologize foreven if the rationale was incorrect), but not for your poor language. I am not surprised that the IP "ignored [your] recommendations" when your first "recommendation" was "Mind citing at least 20 sources that prove Chek Chue isn't the commonname?".Toadspike[Talk]08:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently hedoesn't get it.203.145.95.161 (talk)09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was made two hours before my comment. You are not doing yourself any good by being snarky here.Toadspike[Talk]09:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't actually referring to your message above. He's been reminded of Wp:Statusquo much much earlier.203.145.95.161 (talk)10:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferianThomasmentioned in his message toUnderwaterbuffalo that Chek Chue Barracks was returned in the search on Hong Kong Government's mapping app, and within less than 120 minutes' time SigillumVerthad proceeded to move the Stanley Fort article to Chek Chue Barracks. Had they come across the discussions at the talk page of the article on Stanley, Hong Kong and here they could have known it wouldn't be good timing to perform something essentially similar to what is already heavily criticised by almost everyone involved. They had provided no source to support their claim that Chek Chue Barracks has superseded Stanley Fort as the common name for the fort (i.e. the name of the tenant superseding the name of a facility which dates back to the 1840s). They have even ignored in their edit to the article's paragraph regarding the Stanley Battery Gun Emplacement what the cited report of the Antiquities and Monuments Office says. For information I noticed SigillumVert is embroiled in two other sections above.203.145.95.230 (talk)18:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HKGW stopWP:HOUNDING me and abusing ANI. You have already been blocked. The move I made was based onWP:OFFICIALNAMES and it does NOT concern the village/area Stanley discussed here, but aseparate article. One page move does not necessarily affect the other. If you want to dispute that, object on the talk page of the respective article. Don't use ANI for this and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground. I was neither aware of this discussion nor do I wish to participate.SigillumVert (talk)09:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HKGW stop WP:HOUNDING me and ... The move I made was based on WP:OFFICIALNAMES ... I was neither aware of this discussion ... I don't understand what your HKGW accusations were about; I'm indeed worried that's early signs of persecutory delusion. I hope you have actually read whatWP:ON is about. Youwere notified of this AN/I on your user talk page.203.145.95.119 (talk)18:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ON andWP:COMMONNAME actually provides for the use of common names over official names. (They are made for people to read and to follow in editing; they aren't made to be quoted (incorrectly).) Not even bus destination signs have been changed as of 2025. Neither are the scopes ofStanley Fort andChek Chue Barracks squarely overlapping.203.145.95.119 (talk)05:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike would you like to take care of this IP user? Clearly the IP user has failed to act appropriately in this discussion and others. Also fyi adjacent range203.145.94.0/24 blocked for similar behaviour, I do have strong beliefs that these are the same person. I'm uncertain about HKGW, but this user is definitely evading an IP block to continue disruptive (uncivil) behaviour.LuciferianThomas00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean I am the same person as 203.145.94.0/24? How could I be? (Not even that range appears to be occupied by a single person recently from you wikilinked to their edit history.)203.145.95.119 (talk)10:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's pretty clear that you are the same person as the one using that range, simply from editing patterns. Stophounding other editors, the fact that you are right for your edits this time does not mean your general behaviour is acceptable.LuciferianThomas11:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious fromthe edit history over the day that who wasthe one being hounded. Meanwhile it's pretty clear there are falseflagging and joejobbing activities.203.145.95.45 (talk)12:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW please kindly expand the block on 203.145.95.119/27 to 203.145.95.0/24. Still clearly the same person evading IP blocks.LuciferianThomas08:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious from a fairly quick look that it's the same person, but if you can explain what you believe indicates that it is then I'll be willing to consider it.JBW (talk)11:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just this reply here is obvious enough. From other IPs, .2351318234772 == .230here, .129 == .205 == blocked .11 atTalk:Typhoon Ragasa. All part of the groupWP:HKGW.LuciferianThomas12:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LuciferianThomas: It may be obvious to you, because you know what you have in mind, so you know what to look for, but I have no idea what similarity you are referring to, so I don't know what to look for. For example, the links you have provided include comments relating to date formats, but a look at some of the latest edits from the IP address that I blocked didn't reveal anything of that kind; I could spend a lot more time searching through a lot more edits to see if I can find that, but if in fact it's some other aspect of the editing that you are referring to then I would just be wasting my time. Since you know what you have in mind it shouldn't be difficult for you to just tell me what it is, rather than expecting me to search and try to work out what you have in mind. If you can provide me with at least one, or better more than one, diff(s) from the IP address I blocked, and corresponding diff(s) from other addresses in the range,and state what is similar about them (unless it's so glaringly obvious that it hits me in the face) then I'll look into it. Otherwise I've spent as much time on searching to see what you mean as I'm willing to do.JBW (talk)15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to explain, but it appears that you did follow up with a block. I guess the explanation is no longer needed?LuciferianThomas04:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand properly,User:Freedoxm recognizes that the article should indeed be named "Stanley". If that's the case, could Freedoxm confirm that on theRM discussion page, so that the article can be repaired. Thanks!Underwaterbuffalo (talk)19:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:杜の街, possible AI edits, and almost definitely AI stonewalling when pointed out

• 杜の街 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)l

This user has made many edits that show signs of possibly being AI-generated. This is only a suspicion and not proof, and the text was added in late 2025, so the AI tells aren't as obvious as the ones in earlier chatbots. But they are still there. (Note: Before anyone complains, this is not about the actual claims but the specific verbiage and cadence -- something that occurs over and over in AI-generated text, does not occur nearly as often in pre-2023 text, and that hasseveral studies ofactual research corroborating its overrepresentation. Please trust that I have looked at thousands of these AI edits as well as thousands of non-AI edits. The patterns are very distinct.)

There are many edits here and a lot of them seem to be copy-pasted across articles (resulting in such fun stuff as ref numbers copied over in plaintext), buthere's one representative diff:their story underscores the difficulties of aligning humanitarian ideals with the constraints of power and local custom in the early modern world,reveal the challenges of effecting change in a complex environment,highlighting the moral complexities of the Jesuits’ position,widely circulated texts fostered a national identity rooted in the belief... (The title-cased headlines and "Overview" etc type structure are also characteristic of AI but the text itself is a stronger indicator.)

Most of the sources cited here are physical books, so I cannot easily check them for hallucinations. Which is why I added the tag, this is exactly what its purpose is. I did not add talk page comments in this page because the issues seemed self-evident to me, there were so many edits to slog through, and it is very exhausting saying the same things thousands of times. The point is to flag that AI may have been used so that the editor candisclose whether it was, and that people know a full audit of every claim and every source needs to be done.

In response, I get hit (and, annoyingly, tagged) with several near-identical instances (Example) of what appear to be LLM-generated walls of text complaining about how the tag "violates the article's integrity," asking for "concrete evidence" when the AI-generated template does not require that (that's what thecertain=y parameter is for), citing irrelevant policies like speedy criterion G15, and otherwise dodging the question. For example:I am unaware of any issues that suggest the article is either partly or entirely LLM-generated in violation of the three criteria of WP:G15 -- if you wrote the thing, why are you talking about "issues that suggest" the article text is AI when you can definitively state whether it was?

I tried collapsing the latest one perWP:HATGPT, it was reverted, and so here we are. Ironically it would have been plausible the article edits just happened to overlap with AI verbiage until that talkpage spam.Gnomingstuff (talk)14:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the talkpage requests to remove the AI-generated tag absolutely read to me as typical LLM rebuttals, down to the excessive referencing of WP:XYZ pages.Sarsenet•he/they•(talk)14:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. My feeling is that the original article text (at least inSlavery in Portugal) was written by a human, but then it was "polished" by a LLM. This is because the source-text integrity is closer than what you would expect from something wholly LLM-generated, and it relies, unusually for pure-LLM text, on fewer sources with supporting quotes. However, there are still numerous infelicities, all of which occur in text that strongly resembles AI-generation. For example, under #Portuguese just war doctrine, we have the phrase "ensuring such practices aligned with ethical standards", which cannot be verified by the provided quote but which isexactly the sort of vaguely positive jargon LLMs love to churn out. The talkpage responses are very likely similar.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)15:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is my sense as well -- either that or an LLM-based translation, since the editor seems to be active on the Japanese wiki. One of the reasons I added the tag was so people who actually have access to those sources could check them out.

(I reverted one edit, probably hasty on my part -- I've been criticized by different people for tagging instead of reverting as well as for reverting instead of tagging, so I don't even know at this point.)Gnomingstuff (talk)15:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even more likely, the LLM was given the lengthy quotes and asked to summarise them. There is a fair bit of plagiarism in the article, and its far easier to plagiarise when you only have one layer of content production, not two. Violations such as:

are almost certainly the result of an LLM being asked to summarise text, unknowing toWP:CLOP.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can support Gnomingstuff's assessment that 杜の街 has used an LLM to generate prose. Here’s another example that reflects the struggle of using a Large language model to generate text, illustrating and revealing that despite recent advances humans are best suited for the challenge of creating prose, and underscoring the importance of carefully reviewing and correcting output to better align with Wikipedia’s ideals.

When asked directly, yes or no, if an LLM was used, the direct response was:Your "yes or no" request shifts the burden of proof inappropriately. PerWP:V, content is evaluated based on reliable sources, not assumptions about the editing process. Demanding such an answer risks bad-faith assumptions (WP:AGF) and bypasses the evidence requirement ofTemplate:AI-generated andWP:G15, potentially constitutingWP:GAME by avoiding substantive discussion. I have stated that my contributions are based on reliable sources, and I am unaware of any issues meetingWP:G15 criteria, along with a lot of other text that appears to be more LLM-assistedwikilawyering[19][20]. This is not constructive behavior.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)15:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With that unarguably AI-generated quote and equally unarguably AI-generated dissembling, I'd suggest that 杜の街 beblocked from article space until they commit to correcting their flawed text.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)15:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear 杜の街's response here before asking for any sanctions, but I can already say this:

When considering the fact that an LLM was used, that the use is highly evident in the form of unencyclopedic prose, that 杜の街 is combative when said use is tagged[21][22][23][24], and evasive when questioned[25][26]. I have very little confidence in the encyclopedic integrity of their recent edits, and would likely support a mass rollback of effected edits.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)16:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would prefer holding off on anything until they respond -- this editor seems to be on Asia time so they're probably not around right now.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gnomingstuff, @Sarsenet, @AirshipJungleman29, @fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, thank you for your concerns, I'm eager to collaborate and clarify my edits. I take it seriously that at least four of you felt my previous writing style seemed mechanical. Regarding the high rate of false positives in AI detection, there are cases like "AI detector is detecting my work as 100% AI generated. Because I ignorantly used it as an editing and grammar tool at the request of an academic advisor. The words, concept, and life experience in the already published piece are my own. What do I do?". I've heard that some Japanese university professors allow generative AI for assignments, so AI usage is likely a more sensitive topic in the English Wikipedia community than in Japan. To avoid being seen as AI-driven robotic human, I'll write in a very personalized style. (I plan to keep this first post long but aim to reply in just a few lines afterwards.)
• Until recently, I was only interested in the Japanese Wikipedia, but my reason for contributing to the English Wikipedia is that I was deeply concerned about the surge in anti-foreigner and xenophobic rhetoric online during Japan's national election in summer 2025. Some of this rhetoric unfairly paints Christianity, Abrahamic religions, and especially Muslims as vile invaders. I noticed biased info from the English Wikipedia being misused by generative AI, with social media AI spreading misinformation, hate, and fear across Japan's online spaces. I felt I had to act quickly. (I'm not religious myself, but I have Christian and Muslim friends, plus friendly Jewish acquaintances, some with young kids, and this wave of xenophobia made me feel ashamed as a Japanese person and deeply concerned.)
• I was swamped with daily responsibilities at the time and thought tackling translations or fixing the messy and biased and disorganized English Wikipedia content was impossible. But I had a Japanese draft from my personal notes, which I ran through Google Translate (a type of LLM) and fixed the obvious errors. For the already completed text, I used ChatGPT sparingly to help with the part I find toughest and most time-consuming: linking paragraphs to make the text flow. That's why I'm absolutely confident my work doesn't violateWP:G15.
• TheBateren Edict article was initially an empty stub, making it an easy place to start (Diffs). The article achieved B-class status in content assessment after my edits (This is the version of Bateren Edict before the quotes were removed. Please use it for source verification.).
• Regarding the AI-generated tag removals onChristianity in Japan, added byUser:Gnomingstuff (17:21, 9 September 2025), they were left for weeks as I waited for review or feedback. But the big rollback edit by Gnomingstuff onKirishitan at 14:25, 9 October 2025, blasting away a huge chunk of content (-176,264 bytes). It felt pretty disruptive without much prior discussion, which is why I acted boldly, and jumped in to revert and push for a collaborative review instead.
• OnWP:CLOP, any issues are my fault, not the AI's. If something's too close to a source, I'm happy to revise or remove it. Honestly, I thinkWP:CLOP is easy to mess up if you're cutting corners and don't even realize it, I might've done that myself, as you can see. Summarizing analytical academic books or papers without accidentally echoing their phrasing is tricky, and I wish there was an easier way to avoid it. ForBateren Edict, which got a B-class rating, ChatGPT barely helped, Google Translate was more useful. But for other articles that seemed biased, I used AI to create section subtitles to set them apart from originalBateren Edict. (At that time, it seemed a very good idea.)
• I tend to cite guidelines and policies a lot, which might make my talk page contributions look AI-generated. On the Japanese Wikipedia, referencing policies likeWP:V,WP:RS,WP:NPOV, andWP:NOR is standard, especially since some editors there ignore these rules. Citing them has helped me keep editing. If my defensive tone has rubbed anyone the wrong way, I'm sorry. I've noticedWP:AGF andWP:CIVIL issues pop up on the English Wikipedia too, and I might come across as part of the problem. I respect the English Wikipedia's culture and am working to fit in better.
• I'm about to notifyWikipedia:WikiProject Christianity,Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, and possiblyWikipedia:WikiProject Human Rights for source verification and consensus making, as they could have better ways to access and evaluate the references. Than you.杜の街 (talk)

杜の街 (talk)08:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, G15 is irrelevant here. G15 is aspeedy deletion criterion. I know the work doesn't violate G15, which is why I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion under G15. I don't know why you keep bringing this up.Gnomingstuff (talk)12:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff: , I citedWP:G15 because I felt yourKirishitan mass deletion (10/9) lacked evidence and violatedTemplate:AI-generated's explanation requirement. By the way,WP:LLMCOMM, referenced byWP:HATGPT, advises:

This does not apply to using LLMs to refine the expression of one's authentic ideas: for instance, a non-native English speaker might permissibly use an LLM to check their grammar or to translate words they are unfamiliar with, but even in this case, be aware that LLMs may make mistakes or change the intended meaning of the comment. For proofreading, it is recommended to use a word processor (see comparison) or dedicated grammar checker (see category) instead of an AI chatbot

— WP:LLMCOMM

If it’s not an issue, may I use an online grammar checker service (likely LLM-based) in this discussion? I'm used to translation and English communication, but checking takes quite a bit of time.杜の街 (talk)01:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not speedy deletion. It isn't even normal deletion. It's editing an article, whichanyone can do at any time.Gnomingstuff (talk)02:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not always appropriate. Please seeWP:BLANK,WP:DEL-REASON,WP:VANDALISM (I don't consider your deletion vandalism now that I can see your restrained tone). I believe my edits were correcting extremely flawed pages from aneutral perspective. Regarding the neutrality, I think receiving feedback from the Christianity or Japan WikiProject members is one option.杜の街 (talk)02:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of those pages, please stop quoting things at me that I have already read. Thanks, I guess, for not calling me a vandal...?

The problem is that the text you added is not neutral; it's the opposite. Stuff like the quote above,While historian Ryōji Okamoto argues that the Jesuits should be absolved of blame due to their exhaustive efforts, their story underscores the difficulties of aligning humanitarian ideals with the constraints of power and local custom in the early modern world is not neutral at all -- it's arguing a subjective point of view, in the samehollow, unattributed, meaningless way that AI text always does. And it doesn't even make sense -- the "while" implies that last part is supposed to be rebutting Okamoto, but nothing about it actually rebuts him. (And if it was a rebuttal, that would besynthesis and would still be inappropriate.)Gnomingstuff (talk)08:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have a good point. You can delete those parts as they have no in-line references.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

— WP:V

To be fair, one can say that those sentences were already sourced before in the same page, for example,Kirishitan. (fyi, the quotes were cleared in Bateren Edict by some user)

"Because of this disadvantage, there was the need to create grey areas where missionaries could let go of otherwise inadmissible situations. Hence, from the get-go, the debate envisioned three outcomes: forms of Japanese bondage equal to slavery; situations that were not the same as slavery but could be tolerated by the missionaries; and intolerable cases."

— Rômulo Ehalt, Geninka and Slavery: Jesuit Casuistry and Tokugawa Legislation on Japanese Bondage (1590s–1620s), Itinerario (2023), 47, 342–356 doi:10.1017/S0165115323000256

"Tolerance was a rhetorical device closely related to dissimulation, a legal strategy tacitly approved by canon law that authorised missionaries to conform to local practices while adhering to established theological and legal principles, a much-needed rhetorical device for those attempting to accommodate the Christian dogma to local social dynamics.48"

— Rômulo Ehalt, Geninka and Slavery: Jesuit Casuistry and Tokugawa Legislation on Japanese Bondage (1590s–1620s), Itinerario (2023), 47, 342–356 doi:10.1017/S0165115323000256

"Valignano and the others were aware of the limits of their powers in India, that they did not have any way to meddle and define legitimacy for slaves entering Portuguese ports in the area. Examination of enslaved individuals was an attribution of secular justices – the powers of priests and priests were limited to examination as a confessional issue, a personal problem between the confessing master and God. They did not have any power to impede transactions on Indo-Portuguese ports."

— Jesuits and the Problem of Slavery in Early Modern Japan, Doctoral Dissertation, Rômulo da Silva Ehalt, 2017. p. 242

The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

— WP:NPOV

Rômulo Ehalt's PhD dissertation is fromTokyo University of Foreign Studies, which should meet withneutral viewpoint requirement, such as certain reviews by experts. It has a higher weight than unreviewed books. Itinerario is a peer-reviewd journal, which justify the neutral viewpoint.

That means Ehalt's perspective outweighs Okamoto (very old work, and more like self-published book, but influential even to this day for his Christian apologetic view) perWP:BALANCE. In order to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views, I could attribute the ideas to Ehalt, so there is a further room for improvements but tough to attribute so many references of Ehalt every time.

Do I agree or disagree with your point? I don't know, but will delete those sentences, as a sign for my willingness to fix the problems (no in-line citations), and resolve any concerns you may have. Anything else? As for neutrality I will ask the WikiProject:Japan as well, as I have already done with WikiProject:Christianity waiting for their feedbacks.杜の街 (talk)06:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for content discussions杜の街, but please note that perWP:THESIS PhD dissertations are only preferred if they have been explicitly"cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties". Single authors are not considered more reliable just because they are recent. Please also note that placing an LLM-generated note asking for opinions on LLM use on a WikiProject noticeboard which nobody uses is irrelevant to any netrality concerns, so please stop deflecting by bringing it up.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)12:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehalt's PhD thesis has beencited 30 times according to google scholar. Chief Supervisor who approved the paper wasShigeru Suzuki, a prominent specialist in Portuguese slavery, a head ofThe Historical Science Society of Japan.

I was responding to Gnomingstuff about the neutrality of contents.

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion.

— WP:DEL-REASON

Deletion en mass should have a good reason. Gnomingstuff noted that he can delete anything, which is partly true, but could be asked to provide the justification if the deletion was reverted. Gnomingstuff must have had a good reason before trying, especially ifcontents have proper in-line citations. As for Wikiproject, I suspect they could evaluate the neutrality of contents better because they have their good domain knowledge.杜の街 (talk)13:20, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that "speedy deletion" on English Wikipedia means the deletion of thewhole article, not paragraphs within an article. This line of reasoning about deletion criteria that you keep bringing up is wholly irrelevant._dk (talk)13:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@_dk, thank you for clarification. I read through the page, your point must be true. So there should be two regulations that only matter when deleting partially:

Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.

— WP:CON

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

— WP:Vandalism

Speaking of concensus, I, a defendant, am allowed to propose the compromose which should resolve the grieviances?

Give me a few weeks for the following actions:

• (1) I will hand over my citations to any interested editors, preferably members of WikiProject:Christianity or WikiProject:Japan, for updating the old pages.
• (2) Then, I would delete all my edits in English Wikipedia. (I can leave your San Felipe Edict article, if you want. You can change or delete my contributions for your convenient time to improve the neutrality of the article with or without my citations.)
• (3) After the deletion, I would clear the AI-generated flag, as the edits will be no longer in place. (Pity)

Reason for this proposal is that both parties seem to have lost enthusiasm to continue this long discussion. I will also have graceful exit from English Wikipedia, and can focus on my daily life. I don't own anything, I am not better than anyone, I don't control anything. Many good reasons to leave English Wikipedia in peace.

I hope we can make a consensus. Please let me know your thought. I am sorry that I dragged you into this incident, and I appreciate your time and others.

PS.Just my two cents. Japanese Wikipedian instructs all users the suffix "-san" to be used as a polite honorific to show courtesy when addressing someone, which could boost the civility of editing environment. I suspect that appearance of civility can be useful in the other regions as well.

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

— WP:CIVILITY

杜の街 (talk)15:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had thought about consideration and respect towards other editors before you decided to lie to them. But sure, I guess we can add a meaningless suffix to your username.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)15:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear the reason I didn't respond was that I didn't see it, I was doing other things. But since you're implicitly calling me a vandal again (by quotingWP:VANDALISM at me) then sure, absolutely you're right, I have now lost enthusiasm.Gnomingstuff (talk)20:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be a misunderstanding. As stated early, I regret any issues caused by my actions. In explaining why I behaved in that manner, I intended to clarify that my response was a reflexive reaction (due to prior experiences of being blanked by other users in Japanese Wikipedia). I had no intention of criticizing you. Regarding the vandalism, I now understand it was my misconception, and I no longer perceive it as such. Given that I consider it unlikely to restore trust, my proposal for partial deletion (preferably all my edits) was made to prevent other sections of the page from being suspected. (I will also retire from English Wikipedia after the deletion. The reason for this decision is the loss of trust, the shortage of the time required for translating from my dense Japanese writing style to good written English without sacrificing personal commitments).杜の街 (talk)12:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that other parts of those articles are not suspected, there seems to be no opposition to my proposal to delete the sections I edited, so I would like to begin the (partial or normal) deletion process. Just to be safe, I will notify the talk page topics before proceeding with the deletion to let them know my plan. The topics on the talk page will be considered resolved after the deletion, as no further edits or discussions should be necessary in this case.杜の街 (talk)08:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omg why do we let people fill notice boards with chatbot generated blather like this? There is a very strong case here for sanctions.173.79.19.248 (talk)09:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to collaborate and clarify my edits – Put a pin in this.

I used ChatGPT sparingly to help with the part I find toughest and most time-consuming: linking paragraphs to make the text flow. – An incomplete truth. The quote I've collapsed above does not demonstrate a model being used for linking paragraphs, as that quoted text isconclusory, does not serve a connective purpose, and is located at the end of a section. The sample quote from Gnomingstuff is the same.

Regarding the AI-generated tag removals on Christianity in Japan ... they were left for weeks as I waited for review or feedback – An incomplete truth, does not mention the removals of tags atBateren Edict[27] (removed after 1 day),History of the Catholic Church in Japan[28] (removed after 1 day), orSlavery in Portugal[29] (removed after 6 days). Does not adequately summarize the sequence of events atChristianity in Japan: Tag added 9 Sep[30], discussion opened 11 Oct where youpropose[d] removing the AI-generated tag within the next few days[31], tag removed by you 23 minutes laterper discussion[32], first reply made by Gnomingstuff 11 hours later questioned if you used AI[33], you replied 3 days later in an evasive manner:

In response to a straightforward question posed by Gnomingstuff,did you use AI, or did you not use AI? Yes or no[34], you replied with a variety of statements including:

Now that you've stated ChatGPT was used, it's difficult to view that reply as anything but deceptive, combative, and disruptive. Near identical replies were made multiple times[35][36][37], and the above lengthy response does not address this behavior a satisfactory manner, instead it appears to further minimize it.

On the Japanese Wikipedia, referencing policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR is standard – I find it hard to believe that the jawiki community links policy at near the same rate as demonstrated in the above replies and elsewhere, I mean just look at this edit summary[38].

Unpin.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)16:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This elaborate defense doesn't change the fundamental fact that there is no excuse for using AI to generate or massage article content or talk-page posts, period. It's like saying you had a drunk write an article, "but don't worry, I read their stuff over before posting it." The block should remain until this editor is able to articulate, in under 100 words, their understanding that they are to write stuff themselves, no exceptions.EEng11:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who had encountered杜の街's edits on a page that I have created (San Felipe incident (1596) to be exact), I can appreciate their edits come from good intentions, AI-generated wordiness aside. They provide sources with quotes, and a quick check with the sources that I have confirms that the quotes were exactly as cited. Their stated frustration regarding the recent sentiment on the Japanese internet aligns with what I have personally observed. However, I also agree with the rest of the comments here that the untagged use of LLM on article and talk spaces is not acceptable. I therefore encourage that 杜の街 come clean about all AI-assisted edits and communicate in personable manner unfiltered by LLM. Even if the language barrier is an issue, I think everyone will find it preferable that you talk in your native language than use ChatGPT to generate an answer._dk (talk)09:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Articlespace ban is appropriate, indef would be ideal. I have less and less patience for this and the word doesn't seem to be getting round that its unacceptable. The editors whole corpus is now suspect, needs examined and probably delete. Who is going to clean it up. LLM's just magnifies the time and energy to clean the mess up. You don't know whats knacked and what isn't.scope_creep^Talk22:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given all of the above, I've indefinitely pblocked 杜の街 from articlespace as beingnot compatible with a collaborative project. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arlandria_Ff disrupting consensus

Dronebogus still arbitrarily reverting IP comments

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

I just came upon something rather alarming: An IP, afterbeing told to get consensus for an edit toMatt Walsh (political commentator),started an RfC.Dronebogus thenreverted them because the RfC was malformed, which admittedly it was, but when they reposted it this time with the correct{{rfc}} tag, Dronebogusremoved it again without explanation, and thenrequested protection of the talkpage without identifying anything the IP had done that went against policy. Rather taken aback, I took a look at Dronebogus' talkpage and sawa complaint fromGeneralrelative in August aboutthis removal of a critique from an IP atCultural Marxism conspiracy theory, which had already been responded to by another user, on the basis "don’t respond to IPs on this talk page, exactly 0% of them have any interest in contributing constructively". And then I thought, this sounds familiar. Turns out I participated inWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136 § Dronebogus doesn't like IP editing just over two years ago, concerning serial removals of IPs' AfD !votes, which led to Dronebogus being topic-banned from XfDs. And I find that in that discussion I wroteIf we're up to the whatever^th discussion along the lines of 'Dronebogus can't follow basic discussion norms', and the whatever^th discussion in which he's not showing much interest in the substance of the criticism and just trying to get it over with, and the matter at hand now is finding a TBAN sufficiently broad that he won't (intentionally or not) exploit whatever exceptions are granted, isn't this the point where we start to say enough is enough? Quite a bit of community time has been spent on various poor decisions by this editor, and I'm no longer convinced it's worth the tradeoff for whatever amount of good edits we get in return.

Was 2023-me right that the problem would just transfer elsewhere? Let's see.Here are Dronebogus' talkspace edits. We can see they actually reverted that Cultural Marxism talk edit three times[49][50][51]. Before that, there'sremoving an IP's on-topic question about whether an article subject had died (which he had) as NOTFORUM. Then there'san IP criticizing two pieces of art Dronebogus, which probably should have been removed by someone due to its incivil tone, but Dronebogus shouldn't have been the one to remove. (It's also, while expressed incivilly, probably a criticism most people would agree with, at least as concernstheNSFW image that's still on Commons). Thenthis IP comment complaining about a gross image (not helpful, but usually not reverted), andthis one about Matt Walsh, which, yeah, that one actually is NOTFORUM, fair enough.

That takes us back 5 months, so it's good that this isn't happening on a daily basis, and yet,we've been here before. The community has told Dronebogus repeatedly, including in the form of three TBANs, that they are a bad judge of when it's appropriate to remove IPs' comments, and they continue to do it. The most recent instance is particularly glaring because preëmptively shutting down an RfC is both an egregious misuse of a talkspace revert and reminiscent of theWP:BADNAC issues that led totheir initial TBANs from closing XfDs and participating at MfD. Clearly some message is not getting through, and I'm even more skeptical than I was in 2023 that another TBAN would fix anything. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that we once (in the distant past) had a very prolific admin who refused to speak to IPs. They are deceased now so I won't name them, but, after several years when I was the lone voice against them they were desysopped, when that happened very rarely, and didn't choose to edit as a non-admin.Phil Bridger (talk)20:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'dsupport a site ban for this editor. I don't think I can ever recall seeing a single constructive contribution from this editor. And frankly, I'd even support a global ban for them, given their shenanigans over on Commons.Though it's only natural that they won't even heed this comment given that it was posted by an IP.2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:242D:93FF:FE0B:97A9 (talk)20:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Another editor who has been mentionedabove had gone much further: They have successfully made animaginary sockmaster of unregistered editors and made their way to label a large number of IP addresses and ranges as an LTA. They are even able to convince administrators at AIV to give it their way. And this isn't the end of the story. They mass revert unregistered editors' contributions to the extent that erroneous and outdated materials are re-inserted.203.145.94.199 (talk)20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't tempt the gods of irony by removing an IP comment here, but, this is completely off-topic; please keep that dispute contained to the appropriate thread. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)20:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just refuting your own argument by not doing so.WP:BITE doesn’t mean “never revert IPs, no matter how inappropriate and clutter-inducing their comments are”.Dronebogus (talk)21:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I would if the situation had allowed. I wish I got the choice not to get off-topic here. But as I expected,this happened. And it has simply gone unnoticed by anyone else.203.145.94.199 (talk)01:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: 1) The edithere was “on topic” but not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. It wasn’t suggesting an edit; it was two random non-contributors chatting about the subject using a name the subject found offensive. 2) the IPhere was a sock perWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. 3)this is absolutely not a constructive comment. I don’t know in what universe it would be. Why do we have to keep something so obviously useless and immature on a talk page for a very serious, humiliating medical condition that should be treated with dignity and respect? 4) IP 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:242D:93FF:FE0B:97A9’s comment exemplifies why IPs areinherently untrustworthy: just who the hell is this? Why do they know so much about me? Why are they so intent on getting me banned? Have they edited here before? How many IPs have they had? Are they a sock of some established user with a grudge? When an IP shows up at an extremely controversial article making something only established users know even exists (namely an RFC) I am automatically suspicious. Maybe I’m trigger happy with IPs, but we restrict their ability to participate for a reason. In general IPs acting like curious newcomers wanting to participate are fine; IPs acting like regular Internet commentators are not; IPs that seem suspiciously knowledgeable about internal affairs on Wikimedia sites are probably socks. Does anyone really disagree with this?Dronebogus (talk)21:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't let IP editors create articles for a reason. Otherwise wedon't restrict them very much at all.Personally I am in favor of full SITE but as long as IP editors are allowed to edit on Wikipedia they are treated the same as any other editor.IPs that seem suspiciously knowledgeable about internal affairs on Wikimedia sites are probably socks is a statement thatcan be true but is not "probably" and "suspiciously knowledable" is an assumption of bad faith. Dronebogus, I wouldstrongly suggest that you voluntarily refrain from removing any comments by IPs on any page, as your judgement in doing so has been repeatedly questionable. If it needs to be done,other editors can do it. -The Bushranger_{One ping only}21:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily do that. But I still think Tamzin’s examples, besides the most recent one that triggered this, are extremely bad. Two areWP:NOTFORUM and one is a sock. And when you’ve been stalked and harassed as much as I have you get rightfully paranoid about IPs showing up with a very personal axe to grind.Dronebogus (talk)21:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Given your strong antipathy to IPs, I would hope that at some point over the years you would have familiarized yourself with how they work.Special:Contribs/2A0E:1D47:9085:D200::/64 has been active in projectspace for 18 months on this /64 alone. It's unsurprising that they've become familiar with you in that time, given your various claims to notoriety here, on Commons, and on Meta. If you're this paranoid about IPs harassing you, then that's all the more reason that you shouldnot be removing their comments, because your judgment clearly sucks. I'm being blunt in my phrasing there because if nothing else has gotten through, maybe that will. You've been told this, over and over again, by the whole community, for years, in more and less diplomatic ways: You suck at identifying disruptive IP comments. Your responses here just confirm that: There is no connection between your apparent standard for removing IP comments and any Wikipedia policy or guideline; rather it seems to come entirely from you not thinking they deserve the same respect as other editors. You still haven't explained at all why you thought you were empowered to remove an entire RfC about how to characterize a BLP subject's politics, instead just nitpicking some of the less problematic (although still not policy-compliant, except the BANREVERT you didn't bother to tag as such) removals. Can you just accept that this is not an area in which you arecompetent? --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)21:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless certain,WP:SOCKSTRIKE says to strike or{{hat}} comments instead of removing them.

Why do they know so much about me? Why are they so intent on getting me banned?. I'm not that IP, but I know about you only from Levivich's July 2024 userpage linking to one ofyour comments on Commons.66.49.187.185 (talk)21:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn’t even my comment. You don’t know anything about me from a single grossly inaccurate insult someone decided to repost out of context.Dronebogus (talk)22:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread the diff author. But my point is I suspect people's opinion was influenced by that thread.66.49.187.185 (talk)22:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That thread was about 90% coordinated harassment if I remember correctly.Dronebogus (talk)22:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DB, this project does not and cannot work on the basis of your best guess hunches (nor those of any other editor). You've cited an essay there (which is itself careful to add over a dozen caveats to explain the broad level of openness of this project to unregistered users), but ignored unambiguous policies (which I am sure have been cited for you in previous discussions on this topic), which clearly require you not to remove other editor's talk contributions, outside of a very narrow and express sort of cases of the most serious type of disruption. We don't even delete comments from established sock farms, we strike them. That's how serious this community is about its open access, transparency, and record of discussion issues. Looking at the previous ANI that Tamzin linked above which led to your TBANs, this was pretty clearly all laid out for you at that time. And bluntly, even if it hadn't, you've been here long enough that these guidelines should be absolutely second nature to you at this point.

All of this is particularly concerning from the manner in which you have doubled down on the suggestion that Tamzin's examples suggest occasions when you were permitted by context to delete another user's edits. None of them are. In fact,this one wasn't even remotely close to disruptive in any way. That could have been a teachable moment for a novice editor about this project's priorities and needs. Instead, you unilaterally shut down their good faith, if uninformed, suggestion in a manner which TPG unambiguously disallows, possibly discouraging further engagement. This really underscores how laissez-faire and privileged an attitude you have adopted with regard to IP editors, in a way which problematically clashes with the project's rules in a number of respects.

I don't know how much of this is informed by the hounding you say you have dealt with from IP's, but if you are able to recognize that you have developed such a bias, it should be all the more reason for you to have adopted a reserved attitude towards this type of unilateral effort at suppressing talk space contributions, rather than seeing it as justification for being more aggressive with such. Particularly in light of the fact that the community has had to have some variation of this discussion with you repeatedly now. Honestly, I wish I could say otherwise, but Tamzin's suggestion that your response to previous community sanctions raises doubts about whether we can keep extending youWP:ROPE or expecting TBANs to be sufficient to restrict your behaviour enough to make your contributions worth the costs of keeping you on. As with the other ANI discussion you are currently involved with, the IDHT just seems to be off the charts here.SnowRise ^{let's rap}22:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that my above post was an(edit conflict) comment made before I was aware DB agreed to discontinue removing any comments from talk pages. I too think this commitment is sufficient to resolve the immediate matter.SnowRise ^{let's rap}22:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I wouldcompletely stop removing talk page comments. You seem to be jumping here fromthe other open thread I’m involved with where my last comment was politely requesting clarification on a potential IBAN. Like I said on that thread, your tone is hostile and threatening and I don’t want your unsolicited advice any longer.Dronebogus (talk)22:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I was pinged I'll just pop in to say that I agree with Tamzin's assessment. Overzealous removal of talk page comments, even stupid or objectionable ones, is counterproductive. Removing forum posting or gross insults is one thing, butthis removal silenced both a legitimate question and the response to that question by an experienced editor. (Not saying I think that the question or the response were particularly good, but that's beside the point; they were on-topic and civil.) At this point we should see one of three things: 1) a firm commitment from Dronebogus to desist from revertingall talk page comments indefinitely, 2) the imposition of a ban from reverting talk page comments if admins think that is workable, or 3) barring either of the above –– and I would hate to see this but it's a last straw situation –– a site ban. We simply cannot have someone running around enforcing an alternative policy on IP editing.Generalrelative (talk)22:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can stop removing talk page comments. Even if they’re obviously vandalism I’ll just report them to an admin.Dronebogus (talk)22:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome. I would be 100% satisfied with this outcome.Generalrelative (talk)22:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve just removed all “new topic added” subscriptions to talk pages, since this is where the offending edit originated from. Disruptive IPs can be somebody else’s mess. It’s one less thing to get constant alerts for.Dronebogus (talk)22:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I just apologized to the IP whose edits prompted this thread.Dronebogus (talk)22:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has it occurred to anyone that Dronebogus might be badhand socking as Fistagon? The ongoing harassment of SchroCat and habit of picking fights fits.2001:4430:5301:9812:2DB2:B0F0:5D59:FD2D (talk)02:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t even have the slightest clue who Fistagon even is.Dronebogus (talk)07:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK back up though, both of the comments about the person's death do actually fall underWP:NOTFORUM, and not even ambiguously:

• The first person asked inJuly 2024 whether the guy had died, which he hadn't; he died in August 2025. So that one is just garden variety using the talk page as Google/ChatGPT. Like... at least just look at the timestamp, it is right there.
• The second person replied after the man's death specifically to sayNot anymore :( a sun has set too soon. Which very obviously has nothing to do with improving the article. Even if you want to split hairs and be like "ok but maybe theymeant it as an edit request and just happened to mention nothing about the article or its text,"the man's death was already added at that time. (Edit made 14:37 August 27, talk page comment made 17:03 August 27.)

Gnomingstuff (talk)02:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the other edits:this,this, andthis are all unambiguously about the article/the pictures on it, so those reverts were bad. The Matt Walsh edit is borderline imo.)Gnomingstuff (talk)03:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnomingstuff: On the last edit, please seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yacàwotçã/Archive. I don’t know why the block doesn’t show up in the log but an admin bluntly declared 2804:388:5059:59:0:50:2C9C:C701 a sock and blocked them. The sockmaster’s block howeverdoesshow up in their log.Dronebogus (talk)07:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really feel like getting into the weeds on the sockpuppet stuff, sorry. Just wanted to correct the record becauseremoving an IP's on-topic question about whether an article subject had died (which he had) is wrong in at least three ways: it was (probably) two different IP editors over a year apart, neither comment was "on topic" perWP:NOTFORUM (i.e., about improving the article, not just about the article's subject), and when the first post was made, the guy hadn't even died. That's a lot of wrong conclusions to jump to in a very short space, which suggests there's some overreacting going on.Gnomingstuff (talk)07:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2804:388:5059:59:0:50:2C9C:C701 was blocked at the /64 range level,see here. — AP 499D25(talk)09:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamzin, since you opened this discussion, I wanted to check with you and see if this agreement served to resolve your complaint here. I'd rather not have some eager ANI "helper" close up this discussion and then have to reopen it because you had more you wanted to say on this subject.Liz^Read!Talk!03:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, Liz. Dronebogus' commitment does satisfy my initial objection, but I can't say I'm very confident that it will resolve the long-term issues here. If this is essentially a voluntary editing restriction (whether or not it gets logged as such), do we really think that editing restriction #4 for the same kind of behavior is going to be the one that solves the problem? --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)06:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand where you are coming from, Tamzin. I like to wrap up disputes quickly but I spent some time tonight reading past disputes with Dronebogus including the other one on ANI right now and disputes they have had on the Commons. I am torn between a big believer in ROPE but seeing that it's been one thing after another. They even filedan SPI case on En-Wiki against an editor they have a dispute with on the Commons so they can really hold a grudge. I guess, if pressed, I'd say, that this was a final, final, final chance to get out of jail. Next one that shows up will be the last one.Liz^Read!Talk!06:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: um, the sockpuppet investigation was because theywere socking. Becausethey had a grudge. Anduser:Izno rightfully blocked them. Am I not allowed to doanything to defend myself without it being deemed an attack on the other party, even if theyare unequivocally guilty?Dronebogus (talk)07:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If the only way to satisfy everyone is to log a formal topic ban from editing other user’s talk page comments (outside of purely technical edits like correcting formatting that breaks the rest of the page) then do it. I’ve broken promises before, I’ll admit, but I’ve never broken a Tban.Dronebogus (talk)07:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding a fourth editing restriction very much raises the question if a person should be editing this project at all --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}11:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  About the “fourth editing restriction” thing… Itechnically have three editing restrictions, but the first two (from MfD and closing XfDs) are overlapped by the third one (XfD in general). So in practice I’m only under one editing restriction (XfD in general). You and Tamzin make it sound like I’m topic banned from three separate areas.Dronebogus (talk)11:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that the first two didn't stop the disruption and needed to be superseded is not vindication in my book --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}13:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dronebogus has a point there. If nobody objects, I'm going to fixWP:RESTRICT to only show the superseding restriction, with links to both ANI discussions.SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding a third way in which the original complaint twisted the facts very much raises the question if we should be taking it seriously at all.Gnomingstuff (talk)16:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SarekOfVulcan: I object because any discussion to lift sanctions should take the cascade into account --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How aboutlike this?SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:47, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have an issue with Dronebogus (I did block them once, but that was in an uninvolved admin capacity), but this user seems to be turning up to ANIagain,again,again,again andagain. Is it time we just cut our losses and concluded that Dronebogus needs to do something else because he keeps getting into conflict with people?Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)13:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Dronebogus has already promised tonot repeat the behaviour-in-question.GoodDay (talk)13:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support a topic ban from reverting IP edits if the community feels that Dronebogus' voluntary commitment is insufficient but our actions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and I don't think this is at all necessary to prevent disruption.Simonm223 (talk)13:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support At some point we need to be able to say "enough is enough" and kindly ask someone to find a new hobby. When we are considering a fourth editing restriction, is a good place as any to do that. --Guerillero^{Parlez Moi}13:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposeand seriously question Ritchie333’s competence as an admin. Digging up years-old drama that has long since been successfully remedied as justification for a punitive site ban after I saidmea culpa and even offered to accept a voluntary TBAN is not acceptable for anyone, let alone a sysop.Dronebogus (talk)13:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's not a convincing argument "they're here over and over again" if you're having to dredge up ANIs from years and years ago.Andy Dingley (talk)13:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That's not the full list (Another more recent example) . I am not going to !vote either way but there is a question if they are a net positive or not. They don't seem to get the social cues and implied rules we work off of. The IP thing is just the latest round of that.spryde |talk16:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was actually going to cite that as an incident where I (however begrudgingly at first) took the advice offered and have not had such an incident again, no sanctions needed.Which is the ideal outcome.Dronebogus (talk)16:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've been here over and over again. We need a better rationale than that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)13:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think Dronebogus' comment above sums it up. Everything is always a battle. Every IP is a sockpuppet waiting to be unmasked. An RfC need not just be opposed, but summarily removed. A ban proposal is not merely disagreeable, but calls an admin's competence into question. I understand being frustrated at saying "the right thing" here and then still winding up on the receiving and of a siteban proposal, but that's a situation a long time in the making, a story told over the course of numerous warnings and sanctions at AN/I. Dronebogus also took their last TBAN willingly. It's a tricky thing when someone does that; sometimes it shows they totally get the problem and agree change is needed, and sometimes they're just looking to get out from under the microscope. Everything Dronebogus has said in this thread reads as the latter. There's no real understanding of why this behavior is problematic. There's no real understanding that, just in general, it's a problem to keep doing things that people keep telling you not to do—something that has also been an issue for Droneboguson Commons andMeta. Instead for Dronebogus the question always seems to be why everyone is being so unfair to them, as if they wind up in these situations due to something other than their own decisions.
  This is a collaborative community. Dronebogus doesn't seem to see it that way. At least regarding IP users, they've even said as much, but really this seems to extend to anyone they see as an enemy. And I think enough is enough. Otherwise we'll be back for yet another round of this in a few months, with no change in Dronebogus' behavior, having the same debate yet again, the same as I predicted two years ago. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)13:37, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Iapologized to the victim of my overzealous RfC removal. I don’t know if they saw it or evencan see it, but I felt awful about it all the same. I haven’t violated my current TBAN, I haven’t proposed any more wiki closures on Meta (not that it even matters considering we’re not on Meta). And yet you’re still trying to get me banned.Dronebogus (talk)13:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that you've been here a long time now, yet you'restill finding yourself in situations that end up involving apologies. Some of that's a newbie learning curve, but eventually it gets toWP:CIR andWP:NOTHERE.

I opposed this, mostly because it was framed as a poor justification for it. But don't think that I'm strongly against it, or far from switching to supporting it. Your commentin this thread re Ritchie333 push me ever further that way.Andy Dingley (talk)16:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in this thread re Ritchie333 push me ever further that way Are there Lèse-majesté laws against admins now? Maybe “competence” isn’t the right word, since I don’t have a problem with a specific admin action they took; “fitness” would be more appropriate, since digging for excuses to site ban someone they consider too much of a liability is not behavior we want from someone who has the ability and right to summarily block people. In any case, I’ll strike it because people seem to be taking offense to it.Dronebogus (talk)16:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Are there Lèse-majesté laws against admins now?" DB, some part of you must know that is a ridiculous and hyperbolic exaggeration of the criticism here. Saying that your comment was out of line and precisely indicative of the problems the community is having with you is not remotely the same thing as saying "Admins are beyond reproach and we will come for you if you publicly criticize them." Try to have some perspective here. What you frame as"digging for excuses to site ban someone they consider too much of a liability", I would say is better described as simply but effectively pointing to a clear and obvious public record of longterm issues which have recurred over and over for years, despite substantial effort from the community to find a way to keep you on the project while arresting the disruption that too often seems to involve.

Nor is it just the ongoing nature of the issues in those previous discussions that I find compelling. The other thing that stands out to me is the sheer pugnacity of your response to criticism in every. single. case. Every time the community has to step in to intercede between you and others, you just lash out in every direction at the least bit of condemnation, like a prize fighter too punch drunk to realize they at some point lost sight of their opponent and are now throwing haymakers at the referee. Just getting you to admit that you have made any kind of error is like pulling teeth, and the community seemingly has to start over with you on this battle of wills every time it needs you tojust listen for a moment. And at the end, you typically end up accepting (even arguing for) another TBAN or IBAN to resolve the issues and move on, but even then, it feels more as if you are negotiating your way out from under the cloud, rather than accepting any culpability for the issues.

Speaking for myself, the only reason I couldn't bring myself to !vote for the full CBAN proposal here was that this conversation presented one of the few small exceptions to that pattern: in this case your mea culpa had a note of sincerity to it, and in my mind it just does not make sense to dispose of a useful, if conflict-prone, editor just when they are at their closest to being clued in to the issues that bring them back here to ANI time and again.

But at the same time, I question whether it will make any difference in the long run, given the level of denial of the extent of those issues. If your response to an admin pointing out how many times you have been sanctioned by the community in recent years is not to reflect on what that says about your conduct, but rather to lash out about how this supposedly raises questions aboutthe mop's "competence"/"fitness" for having theaudacity to link to some of the discussions in which you received a community sanction over recent years, it casts serious doubt on your capacity for the kind of self-reflection that will be necessary to keep yourself in good standing and active on the project going forward, whatever happens with the current !votes. For myself, eternal sunny optimist that I am, I'm still willing to err on the side of keeping you on and giving you that chance. But just like Andy Dingley, your responses here pushed me very close to going in another direction, and I believe you still need a big change in perspective to avoid ending up here again.SnowRise ^{let's rap}14:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw the “question Ritchie’s adminship” thing was more of a “WTF” response to such a poorly made proposal suggesting such a high-level sanction coming from someone who should know what they’re doing and usually does. As for “self-reflection” or “accepting culpability”… does it really matter as long as I stop doing it?Dronebogus (talk)17:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter, DB, because folks want to feel that the root cause of the disruption is being addressed, rather than just the latest manifestation. I have refrained from !voting here because I am frankly not up to speed on all the additional context that others have mentioned, and don't have the time to look into it all. I had been willing, as I stated above, to accept your assurance that you would stop reverting comments, but your continued display of battleground attitude here in this thread leads me to question whether anything has really been resolved. The fundamental issue is –– and I'm going to use a term I don't love, but there's really no escaping it ––self-restraint. In order to collaborate effectively with others, you've got to be able to keep your mouth shut sometimes, even (or especially) when you feel strongly. And when you're faced with genuine antagonism, it is often a much stronger strategy tobe the bigger person. I am genuinely imploring you: listen to folks like SnowRise above who have your best interest at heart.Generalrelative (talk)18:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I do feel genuine remorse for my actions, and I will voluntarily withdraw from removing/editing/collapsing/whatever talk page comments no matter what, if any, sanctions are imposed on me because it’s not something I think I’m actually skilled at making sound judgement calls on.Dronebogus (talk)18:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely poor edit in your part dude, preventing an editor making a contribution to the talk page. You can't make an excuse for it in any shape or form. You have been here since April 2020, but your still making fundamental mistakes in talk page ettiquete. Its a completeWP:CIR issue. I can't understand it. That article needs ton of work as well and to dim the talk page it not cool.scope_creep^Talk22:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. And I won’t do it again. I have made that clear over and over again and offered to accept a topic ban to guarantee it.Dronebogus (talk)22:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was unsure whether this was actually necessary, until I saw Dronebogus's comment above "question[ing] Ritchie333’s competence as an admin". Regardless of the specifics, it is common enough, when patterns of similar problematic behaviour recur often enough, for the community (not just admins - indeed one doesn't need to be an admin to propose a ban, and it isn't an administrative task) to decide thatmea culpas and voluntary agreements are inadequate. Dronebogus's battleground behaviour and attempts to shift the blame are obvious in this response. Accordingly, I'd have to suggest that per Guerillero and Tamzin, we are seeing recurring patterns of combative behaviour towards anyone and everyone that aren't being dealt with, and that a site ban is probably the best option at this point.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in my view, no reasonable justification or argument has been made that warrants this action. Seems punitive, rather than preventative.—Isaidnoway(talk)15:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban per Tamzin.2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:242D:93FF:FE0B:97A9 (talk)15:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The actual complaint seems to be a handful of talk page reverts spread outover half a year, several of which were fine. There is nothing here, except cherry-picking edits to make Dronebogus look bad and not even succeeding at that. "Here's a sprinkling of reverted IP comments, one that even I admit was a good revert, several that I admit should have been reverted by someone else, one of which I admit was an unhelpful comment, one of which I'm going to blatantly mischaracterize...but we've been here before."Gnomingstuff (talk)16:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A goodWP:TROUT is all that's necessary here. DB, I'd recommend taking a deep breath and maybe a break. Work on content and avoid these content disputes.Nemov (talk)19:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, perUser:Isaidnoway and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – too heavy a sanction, even when given this scenario. Some of the diffs that were used to "demonstrate" this latest AN/I complaint were pretty bad ones from what I can see. Additionally, Dronebogus has said above thatI’ve never broken a Tban, so if there are any admin actions to be taken against Dronebogus here, a TBAN seems certainly sufficient here. — AP 499D25(talk)23:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose largely contra Tamzin; I don't agree that willingly accepting a community sanction can be construed as avoiding scrutiny. If you take your lumps and go away and do other productive things you usually should get moreWP:ROPE, and I don't see enough here to say it has been chewed through completely. Also per Gnomingstuff, AP 499D25 and Nemov. Not enough there there to support a siteban, but a lesser sanction might be more reasonable. Drone has stricken the question on Ritchie's competence; we should allow for course correction and for heat-of-the-moment excited utterances given the often stressful nature of being brought up on this board.Andre🚐23:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not based just on this but also an ANI thread opened by Dronebogus[52] where he displays the same battleground mentality. Whether it is intentional or not this user cannot avoid conflict and seems to see a bug-a-boo under every bed.Traumnovelle (talk)05:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support asite ban, sadly, after watching problematic efforts to construct a more complicated sanction, which illustrate the difficulty of designing a set of restrictions for a difficult user. It should not be necessary for the community to devise a complex set of restrictions around an editor who means well but is surrounded by controversy because they don't know how to avoid conflict.Robert McClenon (talk)16:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportscope_creep^Talk22:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Dronebogus has said they won't do this behaviour again so a site ban is not necessary.GothicGolem29 (talk)23:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Imagine a venn diagram with two circles. One is "editors who're really passionate and spend a lot of time volunteering" and another is "editors who're hard to collaborate with". We Wikipedians aren't very good at dealing with people at the intersection. In this and the other huge drama about DB on AN/I at the moment, we need to decide who to be fair to: DB, or the people he's making miserable. When we've decided that, we need to take decisive action. The action needs to be something that will 100% end the disruption and ensure there are no future AN/Is about this editor ever again, because he's sucking up mad amounts of volunteer time and we need to weigh that against the value of his contributions.—S Marshall T/C08:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If they repeat the behaviour again then it will be a very different outcome but for now I am happy to not C BAN and go with their assurance that they will not do this again.GothicGolem29 (talk)21:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - draconian, out of reasonable scope and vindictive.Halbared (talk)20:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per TamzinPHShanghai | they/them (talk)18:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a counter-proposal, I think we should consider a two-week black, followed by six months of supervised mentorship, prohibition against interacting with ISP-only users and an IBan with the two users Dronebogus has had recent conflict with.King Lobclaw (talk)02:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is an ISP only user? Anyone without a peering agreement with the WMF?107.115.5.85 (talk)04:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume User:King Lobclaw meant to say "IP-only" users instead of "ISP-only" in their proposal. 'IP' (internet protocol) is the term we use to refer to users who edit Wikipedia without an account, e.g. you. ISP stands for something a bit different, i.e.internet service provider. Technically every single Wikipedia user, including those with an account, is an ISP user, because you can't connect to the internet without one. — AP 499D25(talk)04:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer.King Lobclaw (talk)02:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — an admin could have already blocked Dronebogus at their discretion if they thought their behavior warranted it, and their editing behavior is already being scrutinized as evidenced by the opening of the initial discussion above, so supervision is taking place, and there should only be an Iban if the other users get one as well.Isaidnoway(talk)03:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: still looking for a punitive sanction that in this case flat-out doesn’t make any sense. Why do I still need a block? To stop me from editing any more articles about artisan oatmeal? IBAN with who? Tamzin? SchroCat and Tim riley per the other thread here? A bunch of random IP users with “names” consisting of jumbles of letters/numbers that change every so often? Andsix months of supervised mentorship? What is that, wiki-probation?Dronebogus (talk)10:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There are some IPs/Mobile editors who areWP:NOTHERE, IMHO.GoodDay (talk)15:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose as too little and too complicated. It should not be necessary to construct a complicated set of restrictions for a user who means well but is unable to avoid conflict.Robert McClenon (talk)16:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is overkill.Nemov (talk)13:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Overkill (Colonel Mustard, though not psychotic - Professor plum).Halbared (talk)20:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal sanction needed to address the identified disruption. If the comment is really bad another user or admin will deal with it. Address with escalating blocks. Edit: I'm not necessarily opposed to additional sanctions if needed to prevent disruption, but a site ban seems premature so far, and it doesn't look like it will gain consensus. (t ·c)buidhe04:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as original proposer. I’m getting conflicting messages about whether I was even in the wrong in half of the cited cases but I’ve also generally gotten a lot of requests to stop editing/removing talk page comments so at this point I’m just going to avoid doing it regardless of any formal sanctions. Clearly I lack sufficient discretion to perform such delicate tasks in a satisfactory manner. If I see something egregious I’ll just warn the user and/or contact an admin.Dronebogus (talk)10:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Formal sanction would just be punitive, since Dronebogus has voluntarily agreed to avoid doing exactly this.LordCollaboration (talk)12:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an enforceable voluntary sanction than I would agree, but I think we may need some kind of enforceable remedy here. (t ·c)buidhe12:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have they violated voluntary sanctions before?LordCollaboration (talk)13:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I guess it's kind of moot given Dronebogus's comment above, but to recap, the original complaint contains one "incident" that doesn't exist (removing an IP's on-topic question about whether an article subject had died (which he had) -- once again, it wastwo IPs in 2024/2025, the comments were not related to improving the article, and when the first guy asked, he had not died, so almost literally all of that is wrong; I notice Tamzin hasn't addressed this at all), one "incident" that was actually fine (yeah, that one actually is NOTFORUM), three "incidents" that are borderline right, (...probably should have been removed by someone...), one "incident" that is borderline wrong (not helpful, but usually not reverted), and only one comment in five months that was unambiguously wrong. The only disruptive thing here is preparing this nothingburger.Gnomingstuff (talk)12:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Not entirely sure it is necessary but it is at least a preventative action rather than punitive.Simonm223 (talk)15:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In future, just report WP:NOTHERE IPs/Mobiles to an administrator.GoodDay (talk)15:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose as too little and too complicated. It should not be necessary to construct a complicated set of restrictions for a user who means well but is unable to avoid conflict.Robert McClenon (talk)16:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn’t complicated; “don’t remove other users’ talk page edits” isn’t complicated. Instead, it is your “all or nothing” approach that is too simplistic.Dronebogus (talk)17:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This type of comment is kinda illustrating why people may be thinking you might be difficult to get along with. Sometimes the best course of action is to just say nothing, this is probably one of those times.Isaidnoway(talk)19:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  DB, exactly this. The rope is getting short.Nemov (talk)13:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking the Weak Oppose as too complicated, because the subject is right that it isn't complicated. Not replacing it, and not changing other otes.Robert McClenon (talk)20:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This won't work as there is no process to enforce it and it's too complex a mechanism to put in place for a single editor.scope_creep^Talk11:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We have topic bans without technical processes all the time (e.g. topic bans from BLPs), and the enforcement is warnings and blocks. I see no reason whythis topic ban wouldn't work in the same way. An ORR restriction may be easier to follow though.Fram (talk)08:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Going through talk pages to police them by removing everyone's opinions you don't like should be blockable on the fourth offense like other{{uw-disruptive}} editing -- what are we on now? dozens? hundreds? This isn't the first time they've been to AN/I. It's like the dozenth. If memory serves, it isn't even the first time they've been to AN/Ifor this. It is clear that, unless they are explicitly TBANNED from doing this, any possible thing anybody can say to them will be construed as permission to keep doing it over and over forever.jp×g🗯️06:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I literally just said I’d stop no matter what.Dronebogus (talk)08:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]