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)
CBAN from editing EN WP for repeated and chronic disruptive editing, making threats. Numerically (27-17 by my count), and in terms of reasoning, there is a community consensus that Joseph should have a site ban. Particularly, editors argued convincingly that trying to disrupt the functioning of ITN through threats goes well beyond the normal push-and-pull of WP discussion. Editors are expected to control themselves, even if they perceive bias in some process-outcomes. The repeated nature of the disruptive editing, the signalling that Joseph does not want to discuss with US-based colleagues, leans in toWP:NOTHERE territory.FOARP (talk)10:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Joseph2302 made onWP:ITN/C remarks accusing future administrators that could have posted the articleJanuary 2026 North American winter storm to In the News (ITN) of bias andthreatening a recall petition. His comment constituted, in the first sentence, anaspersion that the administrator was biased. As pointed out inWP:ITNATA #1,Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. The second sentence is even worse; stating that he would initiate aadmin recall petition against any admin that posted the story. It is also worth pointing out that, before making this comment, Joseph did not cast a !vote in the discussion, instead jumping straight to threats to get his way.WP:RECALL states thatOther methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before the recall. Most importantly, this is straightforwardly an attempt at intimidation and a declaration of intent to abuse the already-fragile admin recall system.
Joseph's comment:Any admin that posts this is clearly supporting a bias at ITNC, as a similarly non notable event in any other country or region other than the US wouldn't get posted. I will initiate a recall petition on any admin that posts this. (link).
For transparency, I nominated the article for ITN. However, unlike Joseph, I strongly support the independence of administrators to conduct their jobs without being threatened into deciding one way. In fact, the threat seems to have worked; no admin action has been taken regarding the article despite the nomination being flagged for review and{{@ITNA}} being pinged twice.
To me, this looks like a blatant attempt at coercion to force admins into not posting. However, there doesn't seem to be a pattern of misconduct, so while it's possible that a topic ban is warranted if the community decides this was egregious enough, but a more likely result is a formal warning, with a ban only coming if he repeats this behavior.QuicoleJR (talk)04:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In November 2023, Joseph2302 stated in an unblock request (for a partial block from ITN areas),"I do not intend to get involved with other ITN debates about e.g. whether ITN has US/UK bias, which were the sorts of topics that led to heated discussions and my original ban" (seerequest). Here we are, a bit over two years later, and Joseph2302 is not only opposing inclusion of a US item based on perceived bias, butthreatening administrators with recall if they post it. This isn't just violating their oath in their unblock request. This is chucking it out a 100 story window and saying screw you to the community. Prior to this, in August 2022, Joseph2302 stated inanother unblock request,"I have no issues with any groups of editors on here, and apologise for actions that say to the contrary, particularly against Americans" Yet, again, here we are with an attack on people who are perceived to favor American subjects. Also of note, the unblocking admin at that request referencedWP:LASTCHANCE. In 2015, Joseph2302 said"Thank you for unblocking me, I won't let you down." (diff) In the 10+ years since they said they wouldn't let us down they have been blocked for
I'm left wondering how many times does trust have to be broken, how many last chances have to be given, how many times do they have to let us down, how many broken apologies have to be given, before we recognise this editor is not compatible with this project? The blocks aren't working. TheWP:STANDARDOFFER return didn't work. The partial block from ITN didn't work. I'm not in favor of yet another block, even if indefinite. Every time an unblock is done, it fails. I thank them for the excellent work they have done on the project, but their egregious violations of community trust are too much. I am in favor of aWP:CBAN as the only option now. All the oaths and apologies ring hollow now. --Hammersoft (talk)05:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Especially after reading the above history of previous offenses and broken pledges to reform, I strongly feel an immediate block is in order, and agree with Hammersoft that aWP:CBAN should be discussed, and hopefully enacted. (Full disclosure, I !voted to support the article’s listing as a blurb at ITN.) This editor’s threat, both disruptive and pernicious, in my view, strikes at the very core of Wikipedia’s mission of consensus building and the independence of administrators. Intended as a permanent in-house WikipediaWP:CHILLING EFFECT, the community needs to act firmly as a preventative action to insure the perpetrator is promptly neutralized, and to send a message that this type of bullying will bring swift consequences. Enough is enough.Jusdafax (talk)06:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked I have re-instated their indefinite partial block from ITN and related topics, as this behavior was in direct contravention of assurances made during their last unblockappeal. I did that rather than a full indef so that they can still respond here, and it's not intended to be a solution, or to prejudice a community decision below.Mfield (Oi!)06:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second such threat (to use recall to intimidate admins into acting in a certain way) I've seen in a short space of time, and this absolutely has to stop. I'd suggest that threatening or actually starting a recall motion thus motivated should be expressly made a blockable offence. --DoubleGrazing (talk)11:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to make it a blockable offense - per this discussion, there's probably lots more reasons to block if someone does something like that, and I don't want people to be afraid to start legitimate petitions for that reason.SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps amending admin recall with an oppose option, and requiring like 30% supports as well as the existing 25 signs. Or perhaps a counter petition process to prempt threats. Blocks for opening a bogus recall feels like it's ripe for abuse. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs)14:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list of recall petitions, most don't go to RRFA. We've only had one admin recall that led to an admin keeping their adminship, and that was withdrawn with 2 sigs. Perhaps requiring a certain number of uninvolved editors to also sign? I'm just coming up with ideas here. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs)15:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a slight tangent, I noticed that they createdBarmonarch, a redirect toBarking, with the reasong "Gender neutral name, King --> Monarch". This does not seem to be a credible search term, and appears to be a bit pointy.Nigel Ish (talk)11:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't - it's still not a credible source term, and disrupting the encyclopedia as a "joke" is still disrupting the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk)10:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ireally and truly was going to create that redirect. Really. No kidding, cross my heart. Would I joke about such a thing?EEng15:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for overreacting on the discussion, and would strike my comment (but has been posted anyway and so has the "do not edit this discussion" banner. Whilst I don't think it's right to post it, I acknowledge that it was 100% wrong to threaten administrators over the matter. And I will not actually be initiating an admin recall over this matter.Joseph2302 (talk)14:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I haven't formally supported the CBAN below, though I do think it's the only option. I haven't done so because I was hoping you would engage here. Thank you for doing so. Forgive me for being blunt, but how are we supposed to believe you? You told us you wouldn't get involved in ITN debate with regards to US/UK bias, yet you did anyway. You told us you wouldn't let us down[1]. Yet, you did anyway (at least six times). In 2022, you knew that contributing toWP:ITNC would be problematic for you yet since your partial block from that area was removed, you delved right into it anyway, making 459 edits toWP:ITNC anyway[2]. Why would you knowingly contribute to an area that causes you problems? You say you've contributed positively elsewhere, and you've not made errors elsewhere. How isWP:ITNC some dark magic that makes you go off the rails? In your 2023 unblock request[3] you said you were"avoiding areas in which I think I might get hot headed, which was the cause of the ITN block, and will continue to do so." Except, you didn't. From my chair, you keep on breaking assurances you wouldn't do 'x', you keep apologising and then mess up again, and you keep making unblock requests only to be blocked again. How is this time different? Please don't tell me that since you're partially blocked from ITN again, everything will be ok. It obviously wasn't last time, as you blatantly violated community trust. --Hammersoft (talk)23:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I accept that it was an idiotic cause of action and if I'm frustrated then there's better ways to do things e.g. take a WikiBreak (which I have been doing for past couple of days, and should have done at that time rather than the post in question). I don't feel like anything I can say will change the fact that it's another stupid and avoidable action on my side, so am trying to let this process run with minimal input from myself. Everything I've done is there for people to see, and I accept it's up to the community to decide whether they think it meets the threshold of a community ban. Hopefully not, but that's up to the process and consensus either way.Joseph2302 (talk)15:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Allow me to rephrase. You've done a lot of good work here. I believe you want to stay here and continue that work. I think you're quite cognizant of the reality that you've had a rather spotted history, with a number of blocks and bans. I think you also understand that your prior assurances and apologies were insufficient, in that you still ended up engaging in hostile behaviors towards the community. The question really comes down to this;
Are you actually aware of the problems you have generated, in toto?
Have you self analyzedwhy these problems have happened?
Have you recognized that your prior efforts at containment of these issues have failed?
Lastly, do you have a plan for how to address all of this together so as to not only avoid but absolutely prevent this from happening again?
If you want to stay part of this community, you need to do this. If all you can assert is agreement that the latest situation was "idiotic" on your part, then there isn't any reason to not CBAN you. We already know it's idiotic. What we don't know is how we move forward. That isn't for us to describe. That's up to you. Standing on your record is insufficient. If that's your response, your community ban is going to happen. We are now at 2.5 days into this CBAN discussion. It may close 12 hours from now. If you have any desire to remain part of this community, a more thorough response is needed. I'm sorry, but that's the reality. I'm not asking you to grovel. I'm asking you to help us move forward. --Hammersoft (talk)18:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that this has taken a while to respond to, have been busy IRL and that's not left me the time to form a coherent thought out response for this. And given that many of my issues have been caused by reactive, ill thought out responses, this seems particularly prudent (if I had taken more time to think before threatening an admin recall, I would have stopped myself doing it). And that's also why I've been less responsive to this thread- and usedWP:Wikibreak Enforcer to give myself time to articulate responses too- something I have used in the past to de-escalate situations, and which I wish I'd used last week instead of posting. I understand the threat was unacceptable, as even though I never actually intended to start and admin recall, the threat of doing so made a target of the admin community, one of the biggest and probably undervalued parts of the Wikipedia community. And that was never going to be acceptable, and the facts if it (and my past misdemeanours have been covered in depth in this thread too). Even if the outcome of this is not to CBAN me, I plan to take some time (1-2 months) as a Wikibreak (using the WB Enforcer), to re-evaluate my actions and interactions on wiki, and think about how much and where I want to spend my editing time in future. With hindsight, it was probably a bad idea to get unblocked from ITN, as that is one pace where a lot of emotion and controversy is stirred up, and also somewhere I've had issues before. And if people do not trust me but there isn't consensus to CBAN me, it seems reasonable for an admin to block me for 1-2 months to enforce the Wikibreak I plan to self-enforce (because I can understand why people would not believe me to self-enforce correctly). I don't think I have much else to say on the matter other than to apologise once again. I tend to base things on facts, the facts are all out there and ultimately it's for the community to decide of my actions do or do not reach the CBAN threshold.Joseph2302 (talk)12:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And this has been a fair and transparent process so regardless of the outcome, thank you all for your inputs. Even if I am CBANned, then that is the community consensus and I respect that.Joseph2302 (talk)12:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of this response of 5 February seems remotely adequate in my view. “Base things on facts” - what facts? These vague ramblings fail to address the specific questions posed by Hammersoft, much less the potent critique by Hiobazard that cuts to the core of why many here want a CBAN.Jusdafax (talk)14:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, this discussion is probably about #10 priority of things I need to do. And I don't really see what more I can add. I know exactly why the CBAN is being proposed, and if I try to promise to do better, then probably people won't believe me anyway. Although to answer the questions explicitly: have I self analysed- yes but again not been my priority in last few days. Which is why I am already planning a Wikibreak regardless of this outcome, to reflect and self analyse in more depth when I have more time to do so. Yes, I'm aware of the problems I've caused recently and previously and so I understand why some of the comments/votes below see me as a net negative to the project. Whilst I believe I am still a net positive to the project, I know and accept that 99% positive and 1% negative is still not good enough, and Wikipedia isn't the place to cause unnecessary arguments and problems like I have in the detailed examples above. With hindsight, I realise I should have focused on areas where I was less likely to be frustrated (ITN after all had been a pain point previously), and this would be what I would strive to do if allowed to continue editing.Joseph2302 (talk)17:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Joseph has been given many chances over the course of a decade to not edit disruptively at ITN and has shown themself to be incapable of doing so. I don't like that it has come to this but I echo Hammersoft's and Jusdafax's concerns of having ran out of options.The accusations of biasThe hounding of editors with regards to accusations of bias against North American and in particular US events has gone on for long enough now, and threatening admins is not something that goes down well here.Aydoh8[what have I done now?]06:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure mere "accusations" or discussions of potential bias at ITN is something actionable. ITN has had issues with Anglocentrism and in particular excessive focus on US stories in the past, and I think ITN has improved a lot in terms of posting stories from a diverse range of countries, in part because of those who raised concerns in a constructive way. What absolutely is actionable is engaging in threats and attempting to abuse process and prevent admins from posting the story to avoid being put through recall.AusLondonder (talk)10:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Weaponizing a community process purely to get your way is a real red line for me. One should not get by extortion what they fail to get by persuasion.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did see that, but I think there's value in the community reaffirming it, and since it was apparently only the talk page, there's also value in making it more explicitly a full topic ban restoration. Though obviously unnecessary if the CBAN is supported.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of new discussion since my edit, and I just want to reaffirm my position. Yes, admin recalls are legitimate, but misusing them as leverage to get your way in a discussion is reprehensible, especially considering it wasn't something even targeted towards an individual there were specific concerns about. And achieving consensus through threat is a general behavior, not a topic-specific problem, so that makes one unsuitable for all topics.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)13:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I also agree with the observations by Hammersoft and Jusdafax regarding the user's history at ITN, especially since they've been given many chances to reform and this behavior has gone on for far too long. Threatening administrators, including those who are well-respected by the community, won't work well for this collaborative project.sjones23 (talk -contributions)06:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Threatening anyone, much less admins who have enough on their plate already, just isn't on. This is a long-term problem and they've had enough chances over years.Blue Sonnet (talk)08:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to support a community ban for the same reason said above me bySugar Tax. The apology didn't come across as sufficiently reflective and it lacked further steps to stop this behavior long term; without that, we'll be back here.Acalamari08:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimesgood faith isn't enough. I acknowledge the sincerity of Joseph's apology. If this were their first episode of inappropriate posting andincivility, atopic-ban would be sufficient. This user means well, but is a net negative and has shown that they do not learn from their mistakes and excesses.Robert McClenon (talk)17:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long overdue. Intentionally and specifically attempting to chill official process actions by making preemptive threats is hostage taking behavior, and Joseph has long since worn out their AGF by violating their previous agreements.BusterD (talk)11:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to say this: Joseph2302 has crossed a line. They have previously demonstrated they often break their agreements even after apology. In this instance, they chose tothreaten the entire admin corps to influence a result.We Every wikipedian should take any such threat seriously. Joseph2302 expected sysops to be influenced in some way by their statement. Such chilling threats against good faith actions are never permissible. 1) Reiterating my strong support for CBAN. 2) As a result of the actions detailed above, Joseph2302 has sacrificed the community's trust, again. At the very minimum Joseph2302 should beindefinitely blocked from any discussion related toWP:Administrator recall. This is not about punishment; entirely about prevention.BusterD (talk)16:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be pro-American bias at ITN, but that would only be reflecting the bias of the world's news media. We can address problems without intimidation.Phil Bridger (talk)11:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support At this point, we're too many unblocks in. His last chance has been used up. At this point, especially with the recent intimidation, Joseph is a net negative to the project.QuicoleJR (talk)14:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After further reflection, this might be a bit too big of an escalation. Barring any further revelations, I'm moving to neutral. The ITN topic ban is definitely a must though.QuicoleJR (talk)15:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst I totally understand that my conduct at ITN was unacceptable, I still do not believe I am a net negative to the project like others have claimed. Whilst a temporary site wide block would be totally acceptable, I do want to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, and have done so most of the time in the last 11 years (although I totally accept that 99% positive edits and 1% poor is not good enough, and in particular, trying to manipulate processes was an idiotic decision that I fully regret).Joseph2302 (talk)14:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN. Threatening admin recall in an attempt to win a content dispute would be appalling behaviour at the best of times, and doing so after making reassurances that similar behaviour would not occur in order to have a previous block lifted only makes it worse. Wikipedia doesn't need 'contributors' who make worthless promises and then carry on as before.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Joseph2302. Slightly over the top reaction to what seems to have been merely a case of typing before thinking. An apology has been proffered, and since no real harm has been done, and in the spirit of NONPUNITIVE, I suggest we accept it and move on. Cheers,—Fortuna,imperatrix14:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (on proportionality grounds). I agree that the conduct described above – threatening to weaponize recall in order to influence administrator action – was unacceptable, and that reinstating and formalising the ITN/ITNC topic ban is entirely appropriate. Where I differ is on escalation to a site-wide ban at this stage. While Joseph has a problematic history at ITN, this represents a single (albeit serious) lapse after a period without comparable disruption, and they have acknowledged the wrongdoing. In short I believe a restored ITN topic ban, coupled with a clear final warning, would adequately protect the project at this point while allowing Joseph to continue uncontroversial work elsewhere. (Disclosure: I was the admin who eventually posted the ITN item in question and was therefore the nominal target of the threat). — Amakuru (talk)15:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Joseph has shown that he cannot contribute collaboratively at ITN and beyond. A CBAN is definitely in order.(Note: I am the original nominator of the ITN item)Chorchapu (talk |edits)16:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A t-ban from ITN/ITNC will suffice. PS - Had the editor went on to attempt getting any administrator recalled for the reasons he stated? those recalls wouldnever have past.GoodDay (talk)16:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eh ... even as an admin who regularly posts material at ITN (and was therefore one of the ones "threatened", even though no recall petition based on this would ever have passed), and even looking at that "impressive" block log, I still think Joseph2302 is a net positive to the encyclopediaas long as they never go anywhere near ITN. So, the topic ban would seem to be enough. I'm pretty sure that if this is adopted though, any more nonsense will be met with an indef that no-one will oppose.Black Kite (talk)17:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't deal with physical threats this way at all. We don't debate whether the punch would land. We take all such threats seriously. Merely threatening to take an admin to recall carries serious consequences for the threatened, the threatener, and the entire Wikimedia community which may reread this discussion in hindsight (and clearly see the mistake we chose to make, of minimizing such written threats). Once we accept these threats as casual conversation, every wikipedian will face them.BusterD (talk)17:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once we accept these threats as casual conversation, every wikipedian will face them: not really, and admins threaten to block people all the time, deserving or not. Obviously, this sort of behavior should not be encouraged in the slightest, but banning someone over a single threat doesn't seem like the right move to me.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)17:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This circumstance seems to violate sections3.1 (threats) and3.2 (psychological manipulation) of the Universal Code of Conduct. I'm reminding readers that ignoring the central feature of the title of this section (Threats of admin recall at ITNC) seems a proportionately less correct an outcome. This discussion has devolved (typically predictably) into whether we can trust this usersufficiently to let them make the same mistakes again. I think we've been having the wrong discussion.BusterD (talk)18:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree this matter should be taken elsewhere. The discussion should be held and resolved here and now. The points BusterD makes above, including the clear violations of the UCoC, are extremely pertinent to the incident and lend additional material support to the calls for a CBAN. The issues of psychological manipulation are central to the self-evident need for this community to put a firm and permanent stop to this type of abusive behavior. An apology and repeat topic ban, in my view, won’t do.Jusdafax (talk)20:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. Don't file a case with the U4C. They will only take a case about UCoC violations if "local processes" are not dealing with the UCoC issue. We, the English Wikipedia community, are responsible for enforcing the UCoC, as is our ArbCom. The U4C will not accept a case for the same reason as our ArbCom will not accept this case, which is that it should be handled by the community. We, the community, are responsible for enforcing the UCoC. I think that there is agreement that Joseph has violated the UCoC. The question is what sanction should be imposed by us, not who should take the action.Robert McClenon (talk)01:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robertasked me to weigh in about the UCoC/U4C of this all. For those who don't know I am a member of the U4C; I speak here only for myself and have not consulted any other U4C member in writing this reply. It's expected that UCoC enforcement happen locally - at places like ANI - for all communities. Further for communities like ours which have an ArbCom, the U4C cannot hear a case unless there has been a systemic failure by ArbCom.The only other exceptions are that ArbCom could ask the U4C to issue a formal clarification/interpretation or could, in theory, ask the U4C to hear a case, but those doesn't really apply here. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)23:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not aphysical threat (if it had been I would have indeffed them myself on the spot), and it's not a serious threat either, since it would never have had any chance of passing (as I'm sure Joseph knew). I can see that people are looking at that block log and thinking "enough is enough" but as Amakuru (another admin who works on ITN) says above, I am not sure that such an escalation to a CBAN is necessary at this time.Black Kite (talk)18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion atWikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall/Archive_4#Threatening_an_admin_with_recall_petition. The very lastlink was to a comment by sysopUser:Stifle which has stuck with meI very, very occasionally pop into AE to see if I can help, and tend to get scared away almost instantly. Since the enactment of admin recall, I wouldn't touch it. Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the debate, I would find it very difficult to enforce any remedies in this prospective case for fear of being recalled by the party I ruled against, unless ArbCom were to somehow implement an exemption from recall based on AE activity. Chilling effect is a real thing.BusterD (talk)18:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This thing, unfortunately, is howthat thing got started. The abuse taken isn't worth the work done. It's a serious issue at AE, and even youquite understand a fine sysop's reluctance. But not enough of us are willing to stomp this (nakedly) manipulative sh#t out when it starts (yet again).BusterD (talk)21:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I tend to get scared away almost instantly. End sentence. New sentence: Since the enactment of admin recall, I wouldn't touch it.
The statement I made is a microcosm and an example. This is another. Recall scares good admins away from necessary but controversial actions.Stifle (talk)09:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you would be a good judge of that since you are not really involved in AE right? Its easy to say you wouldn't do something when you havnt been doing something for basically over a decade. Honestly, I see almost no proof that good admins have had any negative impact from the recall process. Its kind of silly to think they would if you look at it from a big picture point of view.PackMecEng (talk)20:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the comment was certainly inappropriate, it’s not worthy of a site ban at this point and the t-ban from ITN should be sufficient.Jessintime (talk)18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In light of some of the comments below, particularly from Vanilla Wizard, I nowsupport a community ban. While I don't think threatening to take someone to recall is worse than say threatening to haul someone to ANI or to block them, the repeated conduct is a problem and has not been addressed despite assurances it would be.Jessintime (talk)13:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN per Hammersoft’s analysis of this user’s lengthy list of previous blocks and bans, none of which have been effective on the user’s behavior. BusterD points out above that “chilling effect is a real thing,” and as I approach my third decade of editing Wikipedia, I have to agree. Serious damage has been done here. The apology rings hollow, in my view, and the apology only comes after another ITN topic ban and a number of editors asking for a community ban. Given a substantial number of broken promises, I feel community patience with this form of thuggery needs to end.Jusdafax (talk)19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN; i am frequently not in favour of such community-based actions in preference to single admin ones, but i cannot but feel that threatening (even if an "apology" was subsequently given) the entire admin corps in advance were they to do something is a leap across the line and must not be permitted ~LindsayHello20:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even if the behavior was "only at ITN", and even if "an apology was given", that doesn't change the fact thatan explict conduct threat was made, and we can only assume there was every intention to follow through. That is entirely unacceptable, and a good track record elsewhere on the project doesn't change that. There's a saying in some parts of the American south that, boiled down, amounts to: "the fact you only put dog poop inone brownie doesn't make the rest of the brownies you made okay". -The BushrangerOne ping only20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru. This is not proportionate at all, and seems like an alarming overreaction. The first comment in this section mentions Joseph's history of "bias against North American and in particular US events" as if he had an inherently disruptive viewpoint which needs to be dealt with. Many non-US editors would consider his viewpoint regarding ITN/C to be very reasonable indeed.Effy Midwinter (talk)21:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Way to diminish the incident… a threat to recall any admin doing a legitimate admin action is hardly “someone to a drama board.” Your oppose appears to me to be a possibly deliberate mischaracterization of an incident many here to find to be worthy of a CBAN, especially given the numerous previous sanctions. Suggest you strike.Jusdafax (talk)22:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be silly, I diminish it because it should be diminished as nonsense. No mischaracterization, the recall board is just another drama board but for admins. I would be open to CBAN given the block log and other stuff, but it was brought up specifically around the threat of recall. Now, looking at your comment, just misrepresenting my arguments and all that, you might be the one would should be striking their absurd accusations.PackMecEng (talk)01:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but there's a difference between "if you don't stop misbehaving I'll take you to ANI" which may or may not be valid, and "I'll start an ANI thread against anyone who closes this discussion in a way I disagree with" which is basically never acceptable.QuicoleJR (talk)02:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support if this was Joseph2302's first offense, then I would not support. But he has been banned and unbanned multiple times over the past 10 years so this is the final straw.Natg 19 (talk)22:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CBAN The behaviour was totally unacceptable and a long-term topic ban from ITN is clearly justified. However, the proposer here saysJoseph has been given many chances over the course of a decade to not edit disruptively at ITN and has shown themself to be incapable of doing so which seems like a coherent case for a preventative topic ban from ITN, not a punitive community ban. Additionally, the proposer saysThe accusations of bias against North American and in particular US events has gone on for long enough now which appears a punitive attempt to remove legitimate viewpoints or treat them as an inherently disruptive problem to be dealt with.Gone on for long enough now - as if there's a limit to how long different views should be tolerated. Why would this even form part of the rationale here? It hints at ulterior motives to punish, rather than prevent. (For clarity, ITN has had issues with geographic bias in the past although I believe this has improved a lot in recent times and I think Joseph was wrong to claim the story would only have been posted if it was from the U.S. as the most recent natural disasterwe posted was from Chile, with significantly fewer casualtiesAusLondonder (talk)23:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfulsupport. I would have strongly opposed a CBAN or indef if this were a one-off, or if this were exclusively limited to ITN. Before I knew he had a long history of indefs and TBANs, my first instinct was going to be to suggest atemporary TBAN. And if it weren't for the threats, if his only behavioral issue were that he feels ITN is too biased towards posting stories relating to major countries, I'd be reluctant to even support that as comments along the lines of "ITN is too biased for/against large/small countries" are par for the course and not inherently disruptive (though they certainly can be, as this obviously was). But it seems his issue isn't that he's too quick to decry bias at ITN, it's that he himself seems to have strong enough feelings about the US that the thought of seeing a blurb relating to it makes him irrationally upset, or as he put it in his last appeal,too "hotheaded". His second & most recent indefinite block was fordisruption, and general inability to collaborate with the community. See the comment "No American English on my talk page" as an example, and his appeal involved apologies toAmericans and users of US English. If he just had a generally negative view of the state of the US, that would be perfectly fine, most Americans probably feel the same way. But "don't use American English on my talk page" followed by "if you post this US story it'll be the last blurb you ever post because I'm coming for your mop" is a disruptive level of anti-American bias that's incompatible with working collaboratively. Vanilla Wizard💙00:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the most persuasive comment to me was fromUser:Yamla six years ago, written in response to a block for vandalism, not for ITN behavior, and written prior to his most recent indef-turned-TBAN:
Joseph2302 has repeatedly promised to cease disruptive editing, and has repeatedly broken that promise. I asked back in December 2019 what was different this time. I don't need to know the specifics. If they were mental health issues, those can be challenging. If they were personal life issues, those can be challenging. My point is, Joseph has repeatedly promised this was it, he's done with disruptive edits, only to break the promise. What's different this time? This user has been given numerous previous opportunities and thrown them away. What's different this time? I can imagine a number of good reasons why this time is different, but really, Joseph needs to tell us what's different. He's an editor who makes constructive contributions and would be valuable for the project, but not at the cost of the punctuated significant disruption. I hope to see him back, I hope to see a good answer here --Yamla (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020
I share that sentiment. I appreciate that Joseph has done good work on the encyclopedia, more than I ever have, and for longer. It doesn't feel good endorsing a CBAN for someone who I know is here to build an encyclopedia. But we're still, years later, asking all the same questions: what's different this time? Why was every promise made before broken, and why can we trust that this will be the first time they're kept?
Support. I understand why some users are wary of a community ban and think it's too harsh. I'm less concerned about the fact that recall was threatened; as GoodDay said, it probably wouldn't have gone anywhere. The greater issue is that he was blocked for this behavior pattern before, and the block was ineffective. I can't see a topic ban having the desired effect. I think there's a broader issue with toxicity at INTC but that's out of scope this time around. I wouldn't want anyone outside the project to read that discussion.Mackensen(talk)00:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As with what seems to be an increasingly common occurrence, we keep giving editors one last chance, over and over again, until it turns into something like this and they become a net negative for the community.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!03:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN is an adversarial process and so such bluster and over-heated rhetoric is common there. The parties often try to push the admins to close discussions in their preferred direction using procedural devices. The invocation of a recall petition was implausible but that process is legitimate and fairly new so editors should not be punished so severely for trying it on. It clearly failed to work in this case and so it seems unlikely that anyone will be rushing to repeat it.Andrew🐉(talk)09:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate. It wasposted byAmakuru not Acalamari. Joseph's comment was made late on 31st January. Amakuru posted the story around midday the following day. Allowing for night and sleep, that was quite a quick response in just a few hours. My impression was that Joseph's comment had provoked the posting by drawing attention to the matter.
Moreover the context was that the discussion was protracted and had already lasted for six days and so the supporters were getting somewhat frantic as it was going to scroll off soon. They started badgering the admins to post with comments likeAre we getting a decision soon? This expires in little more then a day ... Agree that the admins here should show some spine. Chorchapu then pinged the admins collectively and so Joseph was reacting to this noisy pressure.
While length of time from it being posted was due to it being the weekend, there was indeed a factor that it will be archived in a few hours without a definitive decision. A six-day discussion should not have happened, concerning the fact that several people wanted ITN to be timely.Howard the Duck (talk)14:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion had lasted so long because there wasn't a clear consensus. I counted up at the end and made it 20 supports to 15 opposes. Admins are usually reluctant to close such contentious discussions because they take some time to digest and, if you make a call, the losing side will be upset. My view is that such divisive discussions should always be closed as "no consensus" because the result was obviously disagreement rather than a meeting of minds.Andrew🐉(talk)14:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If a 20:15 margin is "no consensus", nothing in ITN will be posted. I've seen AFDs with closer outcomes and the admin closed it as a delete... that discussion took a month tho lolHoward the Duck (talk)14:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Balochistan has clear consensus. Noms in 20:15 margins or closer are not as rare; if those are considered as "no consensus", nothing will be posted. For example, the Epstein files nom is 8-5 by my count. There's a high chance this'll be contentious as well.
FWIW, if proponents were urging the admins to have a decision, those against were also dragging the discussion for it to be archived without a decision. Some also opposed citinglow number of deaths, but conveniently didn't return once the deaths hit triple digits. All sides were not without fault.Howard the Duck (talk)18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban. My thoughts are similar to LakesideMiners. I'm definitely not a fan of these "if you do X I'll recall you threats" and spoke about another one not long ago. This one is more ironic than that though in that it seems very unlikely a recall would have achieved anything but guarantee a site ban for Joseph2302. Regardless, like others, I don't feel a threat of a recall is enough and wouldn't have supported this if there was nothing else or at least limited misbehaviour. But there is quite extensive history here & while it may have been a while, it's not that long given their history. Although the 2022 thing was not a community discussion, I think we have a problem in that we say unblocks are cheap since we can easily reblock or re-implement a ban but in practice it's often quite difficult to do so. (I mentioned this in another recent discussion.) IMO this means we tend to be harsher with unblocks/unbans than we need to be since everyone knows the score. It would probably be better if we were more lenient but stricter with reblocks. I don't think this is setting editors up for failure, I'm not saying the slightest misbehaviour results in a reblock but definitely serious misbehaviour should. And since assurances were made not just for the ITN block which thankfully has been quickly re-implemented, but for the unblock too. Sink or swim should mean sink or swim, it was Joseph2302's choice for both. Either way, I'd also support an ITN topic ban to ensure the community has a say.Nil Einne (talk)09:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, IMO if you ask for your partial block (or topic ban) to be lifted and you're already on a almost final chance in general, it's very reasonable that if you do something bad enough, we don't have to test whether re-imposing the partial block is enough and we instead move straight on to a site ban or full block. You told us we can lift the partial block without having to worry about you. If you were wrong, you shouldn't expect we'd let you test whether just reimposing the partial block is enough. Especially in a case like this where the final chance in part came from fairly related misbehaviour where the OP takes perhaps legitimate concerns about US bias way way too far. (E.g. the "No American English on my talk page" example.)Nil Einne (talk)12:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(former admin comment)Oppose CBAN. For now. on reflection, struck oppose to CBANEndorse ITN TBAN.@Joseph2302: In the event the CBAN does not pass, youmust cease from aspersions and offering threats and any other form of intimidation. This is not your first trip to ANI. Please gain some insight into your behavior.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)13:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to strong support for CBAN as first choiceperClosed Limelike Curves,AusLondonder,The Bushranger andBorgenland. I hold members of the Community to a higher level of ethics than is found in politics. Bullying and intimidation are never acceptable. Especially to circumvent consensus. There are better ways to address decisions we do not agree with. And I find it unacceptable that such horrid behavior is considered acceptable at ITN, or at ANI, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Recall's purpose is to remove bad admins and not to be a club with which to force action or inaction by anyone. In the context of Joseph2302's block/unblock record and their past, broken promises to mend their ways, replete with apologies that now look like lip service, it is time to CBAN them. Joseph 2302 has repeatedly behaved in a manner below community standards and is not compatible with a collaborative project.ITN TBAN is now my second choice should the CBAN not carry.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)06:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Joseph has violated our trust too many times. (I was, of course, rejecting the "free speech" notion.) However, I regret having unblocked him when I did, and I feel the time is come for (another) CBAN. Hopefully, it will stick this time. I mean, really. So many squandered opportunities granted because he is sometimes productive. Even now, some have hopes, as I did to start with in this thread, that restoring the TBAN would be sufficient. I believe now that thinking/hoping that to be true was yet another error on my part. He has again realized the error of his ways. That would be convincing if he'd not had this realization before. He's now taking a wikibreak. Would that he had done so before threatening to take action against any admin who did something with which he disagreed. Those wiser than I have convinced me that a CBAN is needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)17:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a knee-jerk proposal to ban one editor for another editor's comments is appropriate, or a good response to my concerns that these kinds of bans could be weaponized to target editors for unpopular speech.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)02:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for CBAN. Preemptive threat is a clear violation of abusing the admin recall process and also a violation of UCoC 3.2 (psychological manipulation) per BusterD. Theirblock log showed sustained, persistent pattern of issues. Given their past brushes with indef blocks that were later lifted, we are dealing with anunblockable member that doesn't rehabilitate and that even indef blocks doesn't deliver a strong enough message to stop their disruptive and inappropriate conduct. The fact that Yamla's message towards Vanilla Wizard 6 years ago per Vanilla Wizard's comment above predicted this scenario demonstrates repeated and predictable behaviour pattern.OhanaUnitedTalk page14:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. In constitutional law, there is the idea thatpolitical speech is the most strongly protected form of speech, because the ability to speak truth to power is fundamentally at the core of any free and equal decision-making process. For the same reason I want to establish a precedent on Wikipedia thatproposing admin recalls must be protected speech, for the same reason campaigning against a politician—even for stupid, unethical, or inappropriate reasons—is essentially always protected speech. We can't afford a situation where it's impossible for users to speak out against admins for misbehavior.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)21:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "proposing" and "threatening". In this case, Joseph was blanket-threatening any administrator who were to post a specific ITN entry, which is uncollaborative for an encyclopedia and a deliberate attempt to de-rail the process.EF522:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a promise to start a recall petition can accurately be called a threat, since a recall vote isn't a punishment. Frivolous recall petitions (like this one) will just fail.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)01:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yet in politics there is also a difference between saying that you'll run against someone in an election and saying you'll shoot them. One is protected, and the other is very much not.Chorchapu (talk |edits)23:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, nobody proposed shooting anyone, just a recall. You're generally allowed to say you'll start a recall petition against an elected politician if they do something you think is bad.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)01:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In politics one person saying they'll start a recall petition is unlikely to go anywhere or even make an impact. On Wikipedia a recall petition is the news of the month, and given the current dissatisfactory (to say the least) state of recall it has every chance to lead to something.Chorchapu (talk |edits)02:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why people are comparing recall with threats of physical violence. Recall just means that an admin has a chance of losing their tools, and they can always gain them back with a successful RfA. I personally think that most people, especially admins, overestimate the effectiveness of recall.ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk,🫘 contribs)16:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 10 recall petitions that have been put forth,only 1 admin retained their tools. Even though this one likely wouldn't have ended in much, a recall and RRfA can be incredibly stressful and may even lead the admin to resign. And to echo others' points, it also creates a large chilling effect over admins taking much-needed controversial decisions.Chorchapu (talk |edits)17:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with Closed Limelike Curves. The threat under discussion was intended, as noted above, to have a chilling effect that would discourage all, repeat all admins from posting a community nominated blurb. CLC would seem to advocate, as I see it, a type of Wild West shootout where all admins are subject to preemptive threats in the name of free or protected speech. This type of blanket threat will quickly turn Wikipedia into a jungle. Citing constitutional law at AN/I is apples and oranges.Jusdafax (talk)23:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a recall because you have reasonable concerns about an admin, fine. Using the threat of recall in an attempt to get your own way through coercion is a whole different story. Likening this to running against a politician in an election is illogical.AusLondonder (talk)02:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Borgenland andDeepfriedokra: just on a point of order, it seems like you guys are now !voting to CBAN Joseph based on the comments in this thread implying that Joseph's conduct came under the "free speech" umbrella... but, just to be clear, that is an excuse that *others* in this thread have been pushing. Joseph himself doesn't seem to have attempted to hide behind a "free speech" defence at all, and has fully disowned and apologised for his original comments. Obviously many editors are unconvinced by this and are pushing for a CBAN anyway, which is their prerogative and yours too if you feel that he's run out of lives at this point, that's a reasonable point of view. But I would request you to please consider the case on its own merits and decide whether you support a CBAN based on Joseph's actions alone, and not based on what other editors are saying about it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)16:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Amakuru's argument. I had been leaning CBAN previously but was reluctant to cast since I would not have had a new argument to begin with. However, seeing such, for the lack of a better word, absurdity about free speech, it was IMO somewhat the chilling, or is it the ripple effect, of the offending user's actions, that finally drew me to vote. I do not wish to question the AGF of CLC and well-meaning opponents, nor do I wish to speculate on the offending user's endgoals or any kind of meat or sockpuppetry, but this subthread seeking to sanitize inappropriate acts shows how irresponsible words by the offending user have provided an opening to allow such behavior to go unchecked in this project, hence the need for a CBAN as a preventative measure and a stopgap against future editors making snide choices without clear regard for long-term consequences.Borgenland (talk)17:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree this behavior is deeply inappropriate. Moving to ban one editor for comments made by a different, unrelated editor is not the kind of conduct I want to see on Wikipedia.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)02:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to clarify a few things, since it seems like I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm not arguing that editors should be allowed to write whatever they want without consequences if they tack a recall petition on at the end, that what Joseph did was acceptable, or that American constitutional law applies to talk page comments. What I'm arguing is the costs of putting up with bluster are very low since (as this thread shows) threats and frivolous accusations won't go anywhere, whereas the costs of users feeling afraid to participate in the recall process would be massive. Because of that, I think we should err strongly on the side of protecting discussion of recalls, and that we should only consider whether Joseph's comments would have resulted in a CBAN if he hadn't made any mention of recall.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)06:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN, by the way. I think these kinds of accusations of bias are disruptive, unhelpful, and inaccurate, independently of the recall comments. I'd have supported a TBAN for this editor even if they hadn't mentioned recall, given his history. On the other hand, the CBAN strikes me as an attempt topunish this editor, which is fraught on its own, but doubly-fraught in a case like this.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)04:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This is a fruitful and productive editor that seems to have unproductive tendencies in regards to ITN. A TBAN is more appropriate and in the best interest of Wikipedia.Jcgaylor (talk)07:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN There is a difference between I think your conduct is suboptimal and I'm considering recall and threatening in advance anyone who takes a certain admin will go to recall. It's a naked threat and not at all dissimilar to NLT. It's not certainly not a sign of working well with others. It's not like the first time this editor has gotten into trouble.SpartazHumbug!16:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to thankUser:Closed Limelike Curves andUser:ChildrenWillListen for illustrating the point more effectively than did I. This wasn't any simple call for consensus,User:Joseph2302 made a naked threat against an entire (entrusted) class of wikipedians (if they merely acted against the threatener's wishes). Oncethat box is allowed to be opened, admin trust may never be quite assured again. As stated above by multiple admins, this is already somewhat the case at Arbitration Enforcement. Such behavior seems to chill even the best of our sysops away.BusterD (talk)19:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good point - a user threatened to take me to ANI recently (saying they had built up a 'case' against me) when we were discussing MOS on a talk page...GiantSnowman20:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin but this still disturbed me a little. A lot of people are comparing it to one editor having specific concerns about a specific admin but this wasn't that.
It was "if anyone who's an admin acts against me, I'll put their position in jeopardy".
Admins are an easy target - for a normal editor you have to persuade an admin that their behaviour warrants a block. With admin recall, you merely have to fill in a form.
Chorchapuabove mentioned the 90% desysop rate of recall - I've only seen the most egregiously ill-intentioned petitions get deleted, so even if it didn't succeed the process is not pleasant for the target.
"The petition is out there with my name on it, there's a tiny chance that it could succeed but I can't do anything about it, I just have to wait and see what happens..."
Even the mere possibility of a petition would be enough to make someone think twice about engaging with the subject, and that's just not on in my book.
My read of this situation is that this is someone who has learned the right things to say in order to get their previous restrictions reversed, so that they don't have to change their behavior in order to get their previous restrictions reversed. This has been repeated so many times that I don't see anything less than a full ban having a chance of being effective. —Cryptic03:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN I reviewed most of the edits that induced earlier bans. There was at least one prior threat to similarly game the system in order to coerce other editors. I think that most Americans are used to our adversarial systems, particularly within our courts; this isn't how Wikipedia works. Collaborative consensus building is an essential part of the WP:PILLARS. The threat of real coercion via disingenuous abuse of the systems used to maintain civility and good order here is completely antithetical to legitimate consensus-building. Further: this behavior not only is a crass attempt to suppress discussion at a particular editing space here (ITN in this case,) but is also a threat to deliberately waste the time of all who, in good faith, would be involved in a recall petition and, worse, a possible following RRfA. Add in the prior block history, along with earlier admins' invocation of WP:LASTCHANCE - type language, plus a bizarre streak of anti-American prejudice, and a CBAN seems not just appropriate, but necessary. The argument that this threat is minimal because of WP:SNOW isn't at all persuasive to me. Brandishing a gun, even if it is unloaded, is still a grave offense.Hiobazard (talk/contribs)13:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply thank you for this well-reasoned CBAN support, which, it seems to me, stands as definitive rebuttal to the opposers, and carries a weight that is of considerable importance. I also suggest we contemplate a closure soon, pending any final statements the subject of this post may wish to add, as invited by Hammersoft in a heartfelt request in the opening section above, but which is as yet unresponded to.Jusdafax (talk)19:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my response to the statement I noted this !vote and the incisive reasoning by Hiobazard. The subsequent lack of a direct reply is notable. I also notice a return to editing. I again thank Hiobazard for making a strong case for a CBAN that has gone unrefuted.Jusdafax (talk)21:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The threat of real coercion via disingenuous abuse of the systems used to maintain civility and good order here is completely antithetical to legitimate consensus-building.
I think the issue here is we can't really consider a recall petition to be a threat, for two reasons. First, the mop is not a badge or reward, and admins do their work out of respect for Wikipedia, not a desire to have and wield power. Second, as you mention, the only real cost of a frivolous recall petition is to waste the community's time; recall will only be a real threat if an administrator has actually misbehaved.
I do agree Joseph's proposed petition was stupid and would've wasted the time of many editors, but we generally don't ban editors for that (unless they waste more of the community's time than they contribute to Wikipedia, which I doubt is the case here).– Closed Limelike Curves (talk)19:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this were Joseph's only recent offense, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. A naked threat was made against other wikipedians acting in good faith. A sysop's only protection is the entire community's good faith in the process. U4C refers to reputational harm specifically, and threatening a disingenuous formal process might cause reputational harm to any wikipedian and the good faith they have earned over time. 3.2-Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want. Their threat is directly applicable. The community has interest in dealing with often repeating offenders. Even Joseph agrees they stepped over a linethis time.BusterD (talk)23:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely mustn't reach consensus that saying you might start a recall petition is grounds for a site ban. If we saidthat, then people would be driven off to discuss recall petitions offwiki and we'd get government by Wikipediocracy. But the other conduct here is intolerable and is clear evidence that we can't work with this volunteer.Cban. The closing statement for this will need careful drafting.—S MarshallT/C08:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your stated view minimizes a bit, S Marshall. I am 100% in agreement about the danger of chillinggood faith petitions. This is precisely what spurs my stridency here. My objection was not to any mere "saying you might start a recall petition". Joseph2302's statementI will initiate a recall petition on any admin that posts this was clearthreat of retaliation based on a condition, a price. This statement was not made in good faith, one clear consensus of the above discussion. No one above defends the threat itself. The (completely out of the blue) threat by Joseph2302 was escalation. It was brinksmanship. It was hostage taking behavior. The threat matches the pattern of other poor behaviors in the user's past. Community response to this offense might indeed unfairly chill other good faith petitioners. These are consequences to theoffense, not the reaction. This misdeed was even admitted and apologized for by Joseph2302, who pledges to take a one or two month wikibreak because of the community's reaction. Now the closer must sort out what preventative measure best serves the entire community. That the closing statement for this will need careful drafting, I concur heartily.BusterD (talk)13:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN (TBAN as second choice): Joseph is currently on his sixth or seventh chance after a long history of disruption and sanctions, with repeated broken promises to change. The fact that they've now openly declared their intent to abuse the system to remove admins simply for implementing a consensus they disagree with is the final straw.Tulzscha (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2026
Support CBAN. I don't get the impression this user understands just how bad this behavior was. Threatening people you disagree with with a hassle on a volunteer site is deeply toxic to the community and drives away wonderful contributors who don't have patience for this crap. If it's not this particular issue of threatening recall, it'll be something else, and this should be treated equivalently to loose cannons threatening to get editors they disagree with banned. "This threat is so nonsensical it won't be taken seriously" wasobviously not the intent, this was not a joke, intimidation was the intent. There is no place for that on Wikipedia. See Hiobazard, basically.SnowFire (talk)03:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal for asite ban of a user has been open for 72 hours now. I haven't tried counting the votes (but a vote count is not a rough consensus), but it looks as though a closer may reasonably conclude that there is No Consensus on asite ban and that there is consensus for atopic-ban. I may be complicating things by saying that, if there is no consensus on the site ban, this case should be submitted to ArbCom, whose mandate is to decide conduct cases that the community cannot decide. A close of No Consensus is a finding by the closer that the community cannot decide because we (the community) are divided. There are policy and principle issues that are dividing the community, including how and with how much weight to enforce the UCoC, and when to give another last chance to an editor who has already had last chance unblocks and has along block log. I have not followedIn the news much, and I don't know whether it is a troublesome area that needs a review with analysis of evidence and fact-finding.
If this is closed as consensus for asite ban, then there is no need for an ArbCom case, and this is a sign that the community is handling the dispute.
I'm incredibly unconvinced that this is the purpose of ArbCom. ArbCom is for "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable toresolve".If the decision here is No Consensus, then the community has resolved that there is no consensus to impose a site ban. Yes, there are issues that do get escalated to ArbCom from ANI, but they tend to be sighnificantly long-running disputes with multiple players where there is an ongoing disruptive aspect which needs to be resolved with a "neutral" jury. Having said that, even though I opposed this, I suspect that there probablyis just about enough support for this to pass, though it'd probably help if people didn't keep changing their minds and bolded their votes properly.Black Kite (talk)22:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please get this closed? The discussion has largely ended and we don't want an auto-archive without resolution, and it's not fair on Joseph to drag out whatever the outcome is.GiantSnowman09:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the discussion has stalled, post-statement by Joseph. I found the statement to be, in brief, unsatisfactory, and the response to my points even more so. A wiki-break, really? The subsequence silence here is, in my view, quite telling, and I feel that the CBAN supporters have made a strong case for prevention of any further disruption. Let’s please ban, close and move on.Jusdafax (talk)20:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus in favor of imposing a topic ban from deletion discussions onScope creep. There is rough consensus in favor of warning him for his aggressive rhetoric towards other editors. Independent of the discussion here, Scope creep has been partially blocked from projectspace for one month by OwenX[5].Toadspike[Talk]15:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scope creep has gone too far now. He AfD the article ofColet (which is still undergoing relisting at this moment), and to be honest I'm not really shocked or panicked at all. The problem with this editor is that he's conducting a hoax analysis of the sources. He claims the sources are "no byline", "PR", and "social media driven" and that's not theWP:RS it works. Perhaps he hasn't even read articles from the Southeast Asia.I'm sorry to say this while I'm frustrated but he's the worst editor i've ever encountered here. When we asked him to explain the basis of his analysis of the sources, he didn't even respond. I'm trying to understand hisgood faith but I really don't understand what he's trying to point out. He even accusedSPA of voting to keep the article on the anonymous users even toSoyadı (who just joined). He hasn't followed theWP:AGF andWP:BITE.
Now, inSherman Poon AfD, he did it again. He called it "PR" sources, and when he encounterederror code (which he seemed to think meant the site or source was dead), I personally checked it and found that it was fine. This means he's doing a hoax analysis again. He also removedHteiktinhein'scomment (I suggest reading all the comments on AfD to fully understand what I'm saying). After the AfD was closed as "keep", he left a message on mytalk page, threatening me to not participate in the Poon's AfD again.If you WP:BLUDGEON like you have been doing, I will take you to WP:ANI and I will get you blocked. If you doing it here, you've doing in other places. Keep that in mind. This is obviouslyWP:HARASSMENT now, and perWP:NOTHERE.
ForHoward the Duck,in the past discussion on ANI, there's no change of his attitude, he'sWP:BLUDGEON the process anddidn't leave us alone. In fact,The Philippine Star is reliable source, but he said on the AfDJuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died).. This is baseless and there's no connection to the AfD.
I'm requesting toWP:IBAN for our peace of mind and we can edit in Wikipedia properly, because, I'm exhausted to interact to them especially to HTD who doesn't leaving me alone, especially when it comes toBini topics.ROY is WARTalk!11:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Holy mother of god, what in the hell did I just read. I have only encountered Scope creep a few times, but now after going through everything, I think it may be a better option to TBAN from XFD's entirely (broadly construed).
Roy was not bludgeoning, they only responded to the Colet AFD twice, and for the Sherman Poon AFD? Encountering error codes that everyone doesnt see isnt a reason to AFD.
Clearly disruptive behaviour from scope creep.Policing AfDs by removing comments they don't like,issuing threats when discussions don't go the way they'd like, all block-worthy behaviour.
I can't see how Howard the Duck's behaviour is bludgeoning; indeed,Bloomagiliw seems have repeatedly tried to antagonise them. This appears to have carried forward fromthe last ANI, when HtD was (from my point of view) lucky to escape a block. This time, it is Bloomagiliw's behaviour that is uncivil (e.g. unsupported but repeated accusations that HtD called sources "trash" or "shit"), and they should be warned for being antagonistic.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)14:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, To be fair, yes, Bloomagiliw might be hostile to HtD, but, HtD is the one who only "bothered" when we're editing in girl groupBini. I really don't know if he really hate that group but we don't care about that because it's not our fault if he hates a group or not. OnAfD of "Ang Pag-Ibig Kong Ito, he saidthis song, which is a classic OPM hit across 4 decades, is certainly more notable than the Bini songs that the AFD proposer propagates., and toGwen's AfD:All WP:INTERVIEWs are WP:PRIMARY and thus fail WP:RS. Only this ref is eligible for WP:RS. Everything else is just primarytrash., and when Bloomagiliw argue, he said again:Just like I said, primary trash.ROY is WARTalk!14:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that I would be brought into this. In fact, I actively encouraged people to just ignore and not bring this to ANI because of how exhausting the process is. Comments like this are why. Sure, I'm "bothered" by Howard the Duck. Frankly it's difficultnot to be bothered by someone who gaslights and refuses to apologize even after multiple mods on ANI agree he was personally attacking me.
My very first response to him was when he was already trying to antagonize someone else. Do you believe that "JuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died)." is in any way constructive or in good faith?
I also responded to the guy literally only twice in the entire discussion.
Also, "unsupported" accusations that HtD calls sources "trash"? He confirms in the very same discussion that hedoes do that, he just doesn't remember calling sources "shit" but he says clearly there that yes, he uses the other words. Coming from the guy himself. I mentioned it because it's a pattern and at his previous ANI, the mods said it's a problem in his case, because he uses such words to try to humiliate other editors and "win" arguments.
He immediately put it up for AfD on January 30 after that with the reasonnot yet in filming phase, even though multiple references in the article indicated the showhad been filmed already. Then tried to blame me becauseIt's clear that no sources about the article being filmed were already in the article at the time article was nominated and I was "misrepresenting" it.
I provided proof to the contrary (sources about the show being filmed were added on January 23), so he stopped responding. But the article still has that AfD based on an entirely bogus reason, so honestly, I do find it a bit difficult not to find such behavior bothersome when the person both 1) refuses to change and 2) refuses to apologize.Bloomagiliw (talk)18:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
" Do you believe that "JuanCast seems to be a column/section/pen name(???) of someone/something from the Philippine Star (I stopped reading when Max Soliven died)." is in any way constructive or in good faith?"
Yes. Do I believe that:
"Thanks for refusing to apologize about degrading my education even though you don't know who I am beyond Wikipedia, trying to gaslight me even as multiple editors called you out, and now pretending to care about anyone's mental health while still letting everyone know that awards mean nothing because you, Howard the Duck, personally stopped reading one of the country's most established newspapers when Soliven died. Facts do not matter. The only thing that matters in the world is what you read and how you feel about things. Thank you for reminding us. "
The edit that you call "Policing AFD" should have been removed, as it was just a screed providing commentary about mean ol' editors, and could do nothing but further turn up the heat. Telling someone that they may bring them to ANI for bludgeoningif they continue bludgeon after they were, well, bludgeoning is hardly a sanctionable "threat." We'resupposed to warn editors about conduct before dragging them to ANI and using the community's time.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CoffeeCrumbs, I can see no evidence that Royiswariii was bludgeoning the AfD about an article they created. They have commented eleven times; if that counts as bludgeoning, Scope creep should note that they themselves are one comment away from bludgeoning.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, this section hasUser:Scope creep's name in the title and I can seeabsolutely nothing that they have done wrong here. Their source analysis in both AfDs appears to be spot on to me. Regardless of whether the subjects are notable or not, this appears to be someone who has written an article with poor sources that is getting annoyed when someone points out that they're poor sources (and many of them are). Meanwhile, the OP statesHe even accusedSPA of voting to keep the article on the anonymous users even toSoyadı (who just joined). Yeah, well, Soyadiwas a sock (and are now blocked indefinitely) and if I was closing that AfD I certainly wouldn't be taking that TA's vote into consideration. There should certainly be no sanction for Scope creep; I have not looked deeply at the behaviour of the other three or four editors involved.Black Kite (talk)14:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely failing to see why Scope creep is even being mentioned here. Yeah, there's an edit or two where I think that they got somethingwrong, but everybody makes a lot of mistakes. Unless there's something I missed or am not understanding, I certainly don't see a pattern of editing or conduct that would lead even to the world's gentlest whack with a goby.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I first noticed Scope's unusual source analysis during the Sherman Poon AfD. I was surprised by the level of bias in the analysis and felt compelled to comment. I was not alone; several editors raised similar concerns and criticised Scope’s approach in that AfD.
Based on the comments across multiple AfDs, I believe this behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a number of community members. After reviewing Scope’s recent AfD contributions, I observed a repeated pattern. His style of source analysis can significantly influence AfD outcomes and can be difficult to counter. AfDs nominated by Scope therefore deserve closer scrutiny.
This is concerning because if experienced editors do not participate, newer editors are unlikely to be able to counter this kind of aggressive or dismissive source analysis. While I agree with some of Scope’s evaluations, as certain sources are unreliable or interview-based and should not be used on Wikipedia, many other sources he dismisses appear usable. In several cases, he has labelled most or all sources presented by other editors asPR-driven orsocial-media-based without sufficient justification.
I welcome good-faith source analysis, but the practice goes beyond that and has caused repeated issues in AfDs, with many editors opposing this approach. There have also been instances where Scope made attacks on editors who worked to find sources during AfDs, including@Cunard:. For these reasons, I do not support dismissing these concerns underWP:IDONTLIKEIT. This behavior discourages participation in AfDs, especially when Scrop is the nominator. I believe this situation warrants at least an administrative warning.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been aware of the Colet AfD for a while, and alarmed by it. Can we cut ScopeCreep some slack? The whole AfD on Colet is a mess, with sock-puppets, a lot of extremely unpleasant personal attack, and a lot of people seeming very emotionally attached, a lot of extremely crude language and personal attacks/threats of ANI. This is exactly the sort of environment where things go wrong, and it becomes difficult to disentangle genuine bad behaviour from edgy decisions induced by the extreme frustration of operating in a very unpleasant environment. The bad feeling in Colet has clearly spread from some other articles too, and no one emerges with clean hands. There is a serious risk that ANI is being weaponised here. ScopeCreep does good work, and some of the stuff they're being accused of here is, in my view, grossly unfair.Elemimele (talk)14:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the SPA case, the AfD on Colet is a mess, with sock puppets and confusion. However, it should also be considered that these SPA accounts may come from a “third wheel” or a “shadow attack.” Bloomagiliw and Roy supported keeping the article, but they have high knowledge of SPA issues and Wikipedia policy, so it is unlikely they would create sock accounts to !vote in this AfD.
This may be an attempt by someone else to portray the AfD as sock-driven by Bloomagiliw and Roy. In my opinion, a third party scripted Bloomagiliw and Roy into villain roles. For this AfD, I am unsure about notability and chose not to vote because I am not familiar with the Filipino entertainment world.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele:ScopeCreep does good work, and some of the things they are being accused of here are, in my view, grossly unfair. Really? No one is trying to accuse the user without reason. If the user were making fair points in source analysis, I would not be here and would not care. However, the behaviour has gone out of line, to the point that even an unrelated Burmese editor felt compelled to speak out about this issue shows how concerning this behaviour has become.Hteiktinhein (talk)14:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly would be sockpuppeting? I'm even planning to disappear from this website and have whole days, if not weeks, when I'm not logged in. Also, onlytwo other people even voted "keep" in Colet's AfD. One of them is a much older, established user (can't speak for the other newer user, though I do know they've participated in various other AfDs and asked me to be calmer even when they agreed with me).Bloomagiliw (talk)18:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone orchestrated this type of death sentence. Only God knows who it is. I am sure no one would be foolish enough to use sockpuppetry in an AfD when the opposing editors have full knowledge of sockpuppet behaviour. If such activity were discovered, it would be a death sentence on Wikipedia.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in this mess which would come even close to a reason to sanction Scope creep. (Okay, I'm not a fan of removing other users' comments from a discussion, but at leasthere that wasn't exactlyunwarranted either.) A critical source analysis is precisely what Scope as the nommer of the Colet AfDshould be doing, and if those sources are then found to be flaky, that needs to be said. If anything, I'd commend them. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something major, I don't see anything in Scope Creep's behavior that goes beyond a few strongly-worded messages.EF515:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The only actual diffs here are removing Hteiktinhein's comment at the Sherman Poon AfD, which I do think overstepped the line a bit in that scope_creep should not be removing comments from AfDs they started unless they are significantly more obviously bad faith (although I do agree with others here that the comment itself wasn't constructive either). But as far as the other evidence alluded to...identifying a 503 error isn't remotelyhoax behavior (incidentally, it's a 503 error for me too[6], and I get the same error even when just trying to access the root site at[7]. There's definitely an issue with how that website has configured their security protocols). The user talk page engagement does not come even close to reaching the level of harassment. I'm also not sure I follow why this report combines allegations against scope_creep with allegations against Howard the Duck--these cases seem essentially unrelated.signed,Rosguilltalk16:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think there's anything actionable, comments such asI will take you to WP:ANI and I will get you blocked. are not kind, productive or necessary. Scope creep, please ratchet down the tone when you speak with your fellow editors. We are all equals here.StarMississippi16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's nothing wrong with Scope creep's nominations or source analysis but their approach to AfD seemsvery aggressive. It's important to remember that AfD is supposed to be adiscussion, and the aim is not to win or get everyone to agree to agree with you. Also, people can disagree with you in good faith. SC definitely needs to dial it back. The same goes for Roy, who also needs to make his case much more concisely.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me about Scope Creep's behavior in the Colet AFD is the repetativeness. Yes, posting a source analysis table is a good and constructive thing to do. Postingthe same one multiple times is bludgeoning. I do think editors in that AFD (including butnot limited to Scope creep and Howard the Duck) are making repetitive arguments. I don't think this rises to the level of needing a topic ban from XFDs, as suggested above, but maybe a tailored restriction to preventbludeoning. Maybe something along the lines of only allowing them to makeone comment per afd, not including their nomination statement? Or only respond to other commenters if they have something new to say that has not been previously said in the discussion? I don't know, I just think the repetition of the arguments turns it hostile. ~ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving16:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just seen this. I've been away the last couple of days. I removedHteiktinhein comment from the Sherman Poon Afd because I read a comment about Hteiktinhein who consideredUser:Cunard to be his idol, so I considered it a case ofWP:NOTHERE. Some of comments Hteiktinhein andROY is WAR made are less than ideal. Hteiktinhein was initially at Colet, then went to Sherman Poon Afd with Cunard, then went Gancube, but removed the comment there, when Cunard moved across. I think Hteiktinhein is a youngish teenager or possibly a child. Royiswariii comments thought it was extremely poor and seemed to have in for me as I was arguing the point with Cunard. I left that message at Royiswariii as I thought the editor was blugeoning at another Afd and me at Sherman Poon. Nowhere did I say that they couldn't come back to the Afd and contribute and don't know where they got that from. I would have replied to Royiswariii if I'd seen the comment reply The Colet subjects coverage is entirely generated from PR. All of it apart from 1 ref. The Sherman Poon article is exactly the same. It is imposible to get these types of articles deleted due to vested interests of inclusionists who see a field of psuedo references and think its good, the PR company itself and newish editors who don't know or don't have any experience of the PR industry. They think what they are reading is naturally real instead of being completely artificially generated. These folk in these bands that are manufacturered come from being unknown to be been to pushed through a PR grater in the first 1-2 years, so they can sell and we don't seem be able to do effectively tackle it at Afd. This is the last shout at Afd for me. Its too much effort for a broken system.scope_creepTalk17:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong point. I was initially at Sherman Poon, then went to Colet. I was simply giving comments about your overreaction, and when I looked at your recent edits, I found that you did the same at Colet and other AfDs. So I can’t tolerate this hoax-like analysis, and that is why I got involved in this drama here.
I did not give any !vote on Colet; I only criticized your actions. I am not alone there. If you were acting properly, no one would try to oppose you. There are over six editors who criticized your overly dramatic analysis.
You cannot judge sources however you want. If many editors agreed with your judgments on sources, I would stay silent. You are not special here, no matter how old you are. As Star Mississippi said, “We are all equals here.”
That said, if you have a strong habit of unbalanced source analysis, you should first apply that scrutiny to the sources in articles you have created. Roy stated that you used poor-quality sources in your articles and that you only look at others’ houses, not your own.Hteiktinhein (talk)17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m clear that I am not supporting a topic ban for ScopeCreep from XFDs, but a warning is enough! I will never involve myself in argument; I will never win. Roy really forgot that ScopeCreep is one of the oldest editors since the beginning of Wikipedia’s creation. He is primordial chaos on Wikipedia and a mentor of countless Wikipedians. So many will try to defend the user even if he did some minor mistakes. Sorry, I will not give attention to this baseless discussion. But one thing is that the user is very over the line on source analysis with his personal opinions. Well, if he is doing good work on source analysis, why did several editors come to oppose his behavior in recent AfDs he nominated? I don’t care about any other case.Hteiktinhein (talk)17:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Of course—seethis AfD. ScopeCreep’s analysis differs from other editors’ analysis. I agreed with the analysis byUser:Prince of Erebor andUser:Northern Moonlight, which I found fair. However, ScopeCreep’s analysis seemed to be emotionally influenced by the sources found by other editors.
The most frustrating point is that, for example, when other editors presented 10 sources, ScopeCreep easily labelled all 10/10 sources as PR or unreliable. That is too much. When other editors later re-analysed the sources, they agreed that 5/10 or 6/10 were reliable. After that, ScopeCreep changed his view on the sources once others pointed out their reliability.
That said,Clarification: There is one source here that seems to be valid, came only after others pointed it out. Yes, it is frustrating, because Wikipedia is community-driven notWP:IDONTLIKE driven....should be honest at first, and seeing this behavior several times is not okay. It does not motivate participation in future AfDs when the nominator is ScopeCreep.Hteiktinhein (talk)18:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two things that ScopeCreep has done that are bad: (1) removing someone else's comment was ill-judged; (2) yes, some of the replies are a bit aggressive. ButHteiktinhein can I just clarify: you are now saying that the "most frustrating point" is that ScopeCreep is accused of disliking too great a proportion of someone's sources, and being willing to change their mind when challenged by other authors? If so, what on earth is this ANI complaint here for? Anyone is allowed to dislike as many sources as they want, and create a source analysis table; no one has to agree with them, we just do all thispolitely.Svartner, if you're reading this, personally I think it might be an idea to let an AfD run a bit longer when there is debate going on; non-admin closures in the highly-emotive world of AfD are a very high risk thing. The difficulty with articles about celebrities is that they attract fans and inexperienced editors determined to defend their hero/heroine; in these circumstances a majority of "keeps" may not constitute a reliable "keep" result because the !voters aren't following any sort of policy. It all gets tricky. No criticism intended, this is just a way to avoid drama in the future?Elemimele (talk)18:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Svartner did nothing wrong with his close on this AfD. Do not over-weigh the correct decision. Sure, if an AfD has multiple Delete !votes and the outcome is still unclear, it should be extended to run longer. But in this case there was extensive policy-based analysis, and no one gave a Delete !vote except the nominator. How much more discussion do you need?Hteiktinhein (talk)18:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that AfD should have been relisted. It ran for only 7 days, there was extensive disagreement among editors as to the quality of sources involved, and the balance of actual arguments is much closer than the !vote count suggests. Cunard's engagement with Northern Moonlight and scope_creep's criticisms of their sources is basically IDHT with regard to the assertions that individual cited sources are not reliable due to being low-quality celebrity gossip columns in otherwise reliable publications (Cunard's position isn't baseless, but their arguments do not decisively address their detractors). Filmsssss keep !vote is ok, if not super substantive, in isolation, but it came before the rebuttal to sources and there was no follow up. Northern Moonlight did not !vote one way or the other. Metallurgist just said "per Cunard", Hteiktinhein's !vote is a combination of "per Cunard" and ad hominem, Royiswarii's !vote is there pure ad hominem that should be ignored in the final analysis, and Prince of Erebor's final !vote is a pretty explicit deviation from policy and accepted practice when they state that a given sourceshould never be considered unreliable under any circumstances, so that !vote should have been discounted too.
So, all told, we have 1 okay-but-not-flawless argument for keep, 3 editors who just asserted that they agree with that argument but didn't provide further substantive arguments, 1 okay-but-not-flawless argument for deletion, and 1 editor who made measured criticisms of both camps' arguments. That to me does not seem like a consensus for keeping, much less in the absence of a relist.signed,Rosguilltalk18:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's precisely what I thought too. I am not being harsh on Svartner because I believe them to have acted in good faith, but that AfD was crying out for re-listing. It was clearly a discussion that hadn't reached a natural endpoint.Elemimele (talk)13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in participating in the drama, but I feel the need to defend myself a bit since my !vote was described byRosguill as "a pretty explicit deviation from policy and accepted practice". The line you quoted is out of context. It was my response to the fact that I found Scope creep's source analysis to be quite dishonest and self-serving. They claimed to have used an "RS script that flags up dodgy sources" and sources likeHK01,Ming Pao, andHong Kong Economic Times are shown as "red meaning unreliable". This is virtually impossible, asHK01 andMP are currently listed as no consensus (blue) here on enwiki (seeWikipedia:New pages patrol source guide#Hong Kong), andMP andHKET are listed as generally reliable (green) on meta-wiki (seemeta:Cite Unseen/sources/zhRSP). So,under no circumstances would these outlets be classified as unreliable (red) by any existing RS scripts as Scope suggested that only aggregate results and editorial consensus based on RfCs. (Edit: Okay, looking back, I think I may not have used the best word choice. I was not saying that a generally reliable source is reliable in all circumstances, I am saying that those sources cannot be flagged as unreliable under any circumstances. You may argue that a piece fromThe New York Times is unreliable, but you cannot make up thatNYT is listed as a generally unreliable source to support your argument. —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜) I do not know Scope prior to this discussion and have no knowledge of how they perform source assessments in other AfDs, so I did not want to call anyone out, and I assumed it was a good-faith misunderstanding and continued with an explanation of why editors considerMP andHKET to be RS. Combined with my other rebuttal to their misinterpretation of WP:INTERVIEW, I disagree with Scope's source analysis and tend to agree with Cunard that the sources are reliable and independent enough to pass GNG. I agree that I did not offer any new insights to the discussion, but my entire argument is based on P&Gs and the actual practices of how RS scripts currently function on WP. I do not see how my !vote is faulty. —👑PRINCE ofEREBOR📜14:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: bludgeoning -- If you've noticed on the Colet AFD, I have not made a formal !vote on delete or keep, just as, as per my pronouncement there that I'd only point out "disingenuous comments". Roy merely "commented" that perhaps "her JuanCast and P-pop Music Awards help her notability", implying those help her passWP:ANYBIO. I then explained the case that it is nowhere near the case. The next was my assessment of the Nylon Manila reference as notWP:RS. "It's from Nylon, so it must be reliable!" Not so fast. My next comment is ifWP:PROMO should be "provable"; I mean even the best people cannot distinguish actual news articles to adverts. Then I replied on Cunard's own assessment of references. Then Roy still insisted on the "Juancast Award" anchoring someone as being notable viaWP:ANYBIO; it's like Retropolis from the Washington Post awarding someone, then using that as the anchor in determining someone's notability here. This not a major award. We do not have an article about the Juancast awards. We do not have even an article on Juancast itself. Let's get real.
Re:WP:RS -- There's some confusion whatWP:RS are. The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, Philippine Star, those are typicallyWP:RS. However, notall of the articles from these would pass. As explained to these people at several AFDs, some articles fail theWP:RS test. There's this telling exchange atTalk:Bini (group)#Comments between Roy andRollinginhisgrave, where the latter looked for "actual journalism". Roy never replied after that.
Again, to reiterate, even the Times of London have articles which failWP:RS. Not everything from Nylon can be used as a reference here.
Re: misrepresentingWP:INTERVIEW as policy -- I always link toWP:INTERVIEW whenever I use it on an argument (maybe except editing on mobile). It is up to the reader to figure out that it is just an essay. We're not schoolchildren that has ro be spoonfed.
Re: previous ANI against me -- Again, as I've said there, I'd submit to the decision of the community.
Final thoughts -- AFDs are discussed in an adversial way. Notability of biographies are determined by the quality of sources; those are the first thing that we'll be looked into. If you are offended by "primary trash", and you were not the author of the reference being described as such, I really don't understand where you are coming from. That's not a personal attack; that's not even a personal attack to the author of the article.Howard the Duck (talk)18:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest, please. The real problem we have here is that we have a large number of articles on borderline-notable BLP subjects written by editors who stuff everything they find into the article as "sources" and then get upset when people actually analyse those sources and find that many of them are worthless. Perhaps the people writing those articles should actually make themselves familiar withWP:RS and understand that advertorials, AI-generated spam, social media postings and tabloid website gossip arenot any use to us. And itreally doesn't help when those people and their fellow-travellers spam AfDs with "Keep" votes and then run here to ANI when they are actually called out on what they're doing wrong. It's simple - do itright the first time. And this can be closed now, because there's nothing for admins to litigate.Black Kite (talk)18:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The user continued to engage in personal attacks in this edit:diff by telling me to “fuck off.”
This is not a content-related disagreement but an explicit personal attack, in clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The language used is abusive and serves no editorial purpose.
A level-4 warning has already been issued. Despite this, the user’s conduct demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to adhere to basic standards of civility, warranting administrative intervention to prevent further disruption.Hteiktinhein (talk)16:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not wrong. If someone values their opinion, many would likely agree with it. Please note that I did not vote in this AfD and am not taking any side. There is no need to point out my comment here. Everyone can see this AfD, and everyone knows that my comment made the nominator angry and now I strike it.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from AfD I've long felt that Scope Creep is a net negative at AfD, where they become extremely belligerent and outright bullying the moment anyone disagrees with them in an AfD discussion, including cursing them out as noted just above. They can't seem to handle any AfD discussion, particularly those they've opened, not going the way they want and will harass editors that vote otherwise.SilverserenC18:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from AfD. I share Silverseren's concerns about this editors contributions at AfD, which often come across as bludgeoning or as if the editor is viewing the discussion as a battleground. Recent examples of personal attacks exemplify this mindset. Prior AfD nominations occasionally fail to exhibit understanding of existing content policies (e.g.Multiple failures of WP:V, conjecture LLM article atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamba (deep learning architecture)).Katzrockso (talk)00:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from AfD I have held back from participating in thisbecause of the battleground behavior I have experienced from @Scope creep in the past. In fact, when I see their participation in an AfD I tend to avoid participating because the interaction is almost always unpleasant. I assume I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm not so vain to say my absence from one AfD or another is determinative, but I try to do good work and I give reasons for the positions I take, and I try to keep things civil and policy-based.I participated in theGancube AfD because I knew this company's reputation and I was able to find good sources in high quality Chinese news outlets. They responded to virtually every comment made, then got upset after it was closed without them getting the last word. Then harsh words for @Svartner on their talk page, and then a referral toWP:DRV which has run with zero explanation (initially coinciding with "I've been away" above) of their basis for invoking BADNAC. I can see valid reasons for wanting a relist, but the methods chosen were IMHO inappropriate and unhelpful.I have no doubt that @Scope creep does good work sometimes, but allowing this behavior to continue simply because they have a track record of other good faith behavior would send a message that good editors enjoy impunity for violations of one of the core values of Wikipedia.Oblivy (talk)03:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wasn't offended, but it seems that, judging by his actions as a whole, he's out of control. It's one of those typical moments when it's best to switch off and go do something else.Svartner (talk)04:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - After further diffs were provided, I'm at the point now where I think a logged warning would be appropriate, but I still think this is too far a sanction, but then again, I also tend to be more forgiving of editors who go too far when a discussion has multilaterally gotten heated. Responding "fuck off" is certainly not cordial, but it hardly qualifies as "cursing someone out," and quite frankly, I think it's a perfectly normal, though less than ideal, reaction after being told that nobody cares about your opinion, which is frankly a bit demeaning, especially in response to a rather prosaic comment about sourcing that wasn't even directly in response to anyone. This last exchange, I see as one that was needlessly escalated by Hteiktinhein, not scope_creep.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the further discussion, I have a much dimmer view of the conduct of several additional editors involved in this controversy, and I have to consider that as a mitigating factor, so IOppose any sanction on anyone.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone “fuck off” is perfectly normal? OK… nice try! I will archive your comment for future evidence that using “fuck off” is normal usage on Wikipedia. I will use this type of language, and if an administrator warns me for using “fuck off,” I will cite your explanation that it is, quite frankly, normal. Thanks.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to you telling someone that nobody cares about their opinion? That was civil?You are the one who raised the heat on that exchange; you can hardly act surprised when someone reacts negatively to it. I find demeaning behavior far worse than a generic use of an expletive. This isn't third grade where you call the teacher because someone used a forbidden word. If you don't want to risk people saying a word that offends your virginal ears, maybe next time don't go out of your way to needlessly goad someone.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)03:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is aragebait when you said saying "fuck off" is normal,CoffeeCrumbs. Let's be real here that according to theWikietiquette of AfD:Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies".,Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia., andAvoid personal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and stay cool.
Also, onHow to contribute on AfD:When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.ROY is WARTalk!23:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Royiswariii it is 2026. Citing fuckoff (and bullshit, in another thread currently here on ANI) are not ragebait. @CoffeeCrumbs has been here for the better part of a decade. Please do not quote pages at them assuming they're unfamiliar. This is not going to be a productive part of this discussion. Disclosure: neutral on TBan but do think some of Scope's behavior isn't productive.StarMississippi00:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support TBAN from AfD I took part in theAfD for Colet's article. During the discussion, Scope Creep argued aggressively and dismissed another editor's view, saying'That is plainly false' in response to Silverseren's opinion. This only escalated the discussion rather than helping it move forward. In the follow days, i saw Scope Creep make apersonal attack against Hteiktinhein, which was disappointing to see, especially since it was directed at a newer editor. Also, the profanity saying that is "normal" is not acceptable to me or the other editors; it constitutes abuse and insult.AdobongPogimasarap 🍛09:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support temporary TBAN from AfD I also feel that this very old editor has shown a pattern of negative conduct in AfD discussions, as several editors have noted above. The editor needs time to cool down, and I hope they can change their behavior in the future. A short-term sanction would therefore be more appropriate. This is my first time having an argument with this editor. In the past, we have had no disputes in AfDs, and I am only taking part in this situation because of the imbalance in the AfD discussion.Hteiktinhein (talk)23:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TBAN, this is a contemptible pile-on, with a number of people popping up whose own behaviour is not entirely clean - they're just better at looking clean when the spotlight is swinging around. AfD is a difficult area, where borderline promotional articles for celebrities and companies are regularly defended based on extremely iffy sources, and ScopeCreep is one of those who calls them out. We need this sort of advocacy or Wikipedia is going to descend into dross. ScopeCreep could do with reining in the language, and has been told so. That's enough.Elemimele (talk)11:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TBAN I can only echo what Elemimele says above, this is an disgraceful piece of bullying, and many of the people piling on do not have clean hands in this discussion. I cannot really seeanything wrong with the source analysis that they did, and I am unaware of previous sanctions being performed on editors because of a mob of people yellingWP:IDONTLIKEIT.Black Kite (talk)11:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's ... interesting how multiple people voting to support this are coincidentally talking about a "hoax analysis", which isn't even a thing that exists.Black Kite (talk)14:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TBAN or any other sanction for that matter. This whole thing is a minor molehill blown up to a mountain of no merit; to what end, one can only wonder. Scope creep contributes massively to AfD, and although they probably don't get it 100% right (who does?!), they are overwhelmingly in alignment with consensus, and clearly a net positive to that part of the project, as well as to many others of course. (They might, however, benefit from a reminder of the importance of working well with others, and one hopes this discussion serves that purpose if no other.) --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hardoppose any sanction on Scope_creep per Elemimele;beams shold be removed from eyes first. Also suggest that any editor citing "hoax analyses" should adjust their reasoning to something that, as noted above, actually exists, or risk their !vote being disregarded; the suggestion that thereis such a thing as a hoax analysis is, well, a hoax.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the recent spate of oppose votes based on the supposed faults of others isad hominem of the most explicit sort. If Scope Creep has repeatedly violated the civility pillar then sanctions should be imposed. And if the people arguing for sanctions themselves violated policy then sanctions can be considered for them according to their culpability, perWP:BOOMARANG. Why does it have to be one or the other?Oblivy (talk)04:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, but attacking people'sarguments by criticizing their theirunrelated conduct (e.g., "people popping up whose own behaviour is not entirely clean") is definitionallyad hominem. A scoundrel's valid argument is still a valid argument.Oblivy (talk)10:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TBAN, but support the warning given to SC; both editors should be trouted here for their behaviour. I'd also caution Roy against accussing other editors of conducting a "hoax analysis", becausethis is really not much better.Nil🥝05:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TBAN - I often disagree with Scope Creep, and I think he is too dismissive of sources sometimes, and I think he doesn't consider the opinion of others sometimes, and I think he bludgeons more than sometimes. But Scope fights tirelessly against the crud that wants to overtake Wikipedia, It's no wonder if he gets a bit jaded. He knows how to build content. He and Cunard are both necessary to this project. SC, if you could maybe realize this is a *collaborative* project a bit more then that would be great. I'm not opposed to a 'formal' warning or trout, and the threatening comment should not be glossed over, that was wrong. But a topic ban would be a big disservice to this project. I'm not seeing the level of disruption that merits a topic ban. Having an opinion that is more or less strict or permissive than yours is not disruptive, that's how this works, both ways.78.26(spin me /revolutions)02:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just issuedScope creep a one month pblock from project space, after seeing his recent behaviour atWP:Articles for deletion/Colet (singer), without seeing this ANI case. Long history of warnings and brief blocks justified a temporary relief for those who find themselves having to deal with him. If this ANI reaches a different conclusion, any admin is welcome to amend or remove the block, of course.Owen×☎01:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe warning him and reassuring his victim makes me "involved". I also don't think the guy is immune from short-term administrative sanctions just because there's an open ANI case against him. But as I said, if this discussion reaches a different result, any admin is welcome to amend or remove the block. It was meant to send a message that SC is not exempt from WP:Harassment, and to provide a temporary reprieve for those he bullies. I wasn't aware of this ANI when I issued the pblock, but that doesn't change my conviction thatsomething had to be donenow. I'm glad to see the community is addressing the larger, systemic behavioural problem here, and will support whatever conclusion is reached here.Owen×☎12:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Even though the TAs and IPs may be constantly changing, you are still required to leave a notice on the users' talk page about AN discussions involving them. I've gone ahead and done this for you on the linked TAs.Umby 🌕🐶(talk)01:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Said that I wasn't supporting the other involved editor's position, when in fact I had made my support unambiguous in bold text.
Said that a BBC article "Opens with Chisora’s Zimbabwean origins & British identity foregrounded in the biographical framing."The article actually only mentions Zimbabwe once in the middle.
Complaints have been made in the past about other types of behavior:
• All of my comments were written by me personally. I have not used any automated tools or language models to generate discussion posts.
• This is a content dispute about MOS:NATIONALITY, & I have participated on the article talk page in good faith. I have not edit‑warred, & I have followed BRD.
• Any disagreements raised here relate to interpretation of policy, not conduct. I have not made personal attacks, & I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour.
• I’m happy to continue resolving the underlying content issue through the appropriate venue, such as DRN or an RfC, where multiple uninvolved editors can weigh in.
All of my comments were written by me personally. I have not used any automated tools or language models to generate discussion posts. Despite my best efforts toWP:AGF, I don't believe you.Narky Blert (talk)17:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There have been repeated reverts of the same material:[12][13][14]
You are eligible to participate in ANI discussions, however I would recommend reading previous discussions to get a general idea of how the process works.Toast1454TC12:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Regarding your first point, you stated in one of your comments that:As for WP:LLMCHAT: it discourages using AI to generate comments without editorial oversight. Every word I’ve posted has been reviewed, fact-checked, & grounded in policy, which I took as implying that you did use AI to write comments, but reviewed them yourself. As this appears to contradict your latest clarification, is there something I have misunderstood?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those talk page comments drip with LLM. Then they come here and use AI to lie about using AI. Could weplease not go through the whole rigamarole of finger-wagging and several rounds of getting more evasive slop replies, and just block? --Elmidae(talk ·contribs)13:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These could hardly look more LLM generated. They don't seem to be "reviewing" their LLM chunks all that well given how often they misquote or make up policy and the editor having said they check their LLM outputand don't use LLM output at all. There's an odd changeover in their talk messages around 1/20, when all ands are suddenly replaced in new messages by &. I wonder if this is an attempt to try and look less LLM-y, even though it would be kind of odd for someone so deep in the uncanny valley of formality to just forget how the word "and" works. In any case, this editor has no business touching articles at this time.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Robots replaced blue collar jobs, no cries , new normal. AI replacing white collar job , little cry as of now, again would ne new normal in coming years. My 2 cents.Hingolddiki (talk)05:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Someone123454321 long-term sealioning and IDHT
This is a single-purpose account who, by their own admission, is "biased" against "feminism in Korea in general".[15]. They only ever edit in feminism related topics as seen in theircontributions, and periodically do it over time since June 2025. They always think they are right despite disagreements from practically every user they interacted with, me included. Their usual reaction is demanding explanations to every little single thing they did wrong, saying "I'm sorry" and then go back to their editing without changing.
See theprevious ANI report for them constantly disrupting process. One glaring example is them digging up baseless personal attacks against me from other WikiProject so that they can lie I have "something going on in the past".[16][17] SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#Discussion where they refuse to acknowledge they're being disruptive, rehash the same arguments repeatedly, and make excuses to deflect advices.It's not a policy but rather a recommendation. If it does not make a significant difference and is reasonable, then I can go ahead and make the edit.[18] SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#Editing the article again, LOUT socking where they sock a TA (~2025-39998-12 (talk·contribs)) to edit the same articles and drag their opponent back to arguments. SeeUser talk:Someone123454321#February 2026 where this week, I gave them the last warning they have CIR issues, and they say I am the problem.
This is a textbook example ofWP:IDHT, pretending to hear but not actually following community input. They're here to waste everyone's time and pick fights. I suggest applying TBAN to them for affected topics so that this can be wrapped up.
Support TBAN there are times when I agree with this user, but the way they go about all this is so disruptive, exhausting, and combative, it just makes everything harder. We've had to deal with them for nearly a year now and it's made even light edits to these pages nearly impossible, because they battleground nearly every edit with long essays.grapesurgeon (talk)16:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The LOUTSOCKing issue is emblematic of their behavior (see thread linked above). At first they tried to lie about it being intentional, then they stopped trying to take that route. They had kept up the LOUTSOCKing for weeks and revised their own edits, it's really unlikely they didn't know they were LOUTSOCKing. It was clearly gaming the system, and that the articles they did it on areWP:CTOPs. This is the kind of underhanded combative behavior we've been dealing with for nearly a year now. It really just needs to end.
Again, I actually disagree with Emiya more often than I do with this Someone user. But Emiya doesn't do these underhanded combative behaviors; I'm able to have a good working relationship with Emiya. The Someone user is too combative on a CTOP to be productive.grapesurgeon (talk)18:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
About the bias thing, that was when I first started editing on Wikipedia and did not have enough experiences. I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. About what this user said about "something going on in the past", I mentioned that because this user tried to shut down all of my arguments with a single fact that I have been criticized by other people, and wanted to show that everyone faces criticisms at one point. I even apologized if it felt aggressive.[19]
About the LOUDSOCKETING, I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. However, I never used two accounts at once to make an argument or editing, and did not know that LOUDSOCKING applied even if I did not do that. But once I was informed, I also added that I was the ip user too.[20]Someone123454321 (talk)00:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to the criticisms I faced and did not edit the Megalia article for a while after that. You've been pretty consistently editing these feminism articles the entire time, and imo your conduct and familiarity with Wikipedia has not significantly improved. You're still similarly just as aggressive, and you'll apologize for bad behavior and then mostly continue to do the exact same thing. Another apology is meaningless given that you've not really improved until now.
I had a problem editing on my laptop with this account, so I used the logged off version. this is just nonsense and yet another lie.Shoot forgot to log in sorry You said this on your talk page, so which is it, did you forget or did you log and edit intentionally? Just admit that you logged out because you were going back on your word of holding off of editing.
To others reading, I'm being firm because this has been going on for nearly a year now. Weak apologies, excuses, and even blatant lying to dodge responsibility for bad behavior.grapesurgeon (talk)00:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add on, the warning came after I had reverted the edit from Emiya, as they overwrote what was already agreed upon the talk page, such as Megalia being mentioned in the lead of the article and changed it so that Megalia only seemed to be related to GS25. They were arguing the change to be made in this way throughout the talk, but that was not how it was agreed on. When I accused them of this and went back to revert the changes that were already talked about or the ones that I had sources to back up from and wrote the reasonings(I did not revert the entire change this time as some of those were okay and reverting the entire thing may be seen as disruptive), they they started this in ANI.Someone123454321 (talk)00:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was not planning on doing anything with the recent edit, but you were the one who went against the already agreed edit and changed it to your likings. I don't really want to spend too much time on this matter either.Someone123454321 (talk)01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. Everyone took a break since things got heated up. You are still holding onto something that can be easily understood if you pay attention. You adhere tothis edit, for example, because you just read the abstract and jump to conclusion, when it's a phrase that appears in the journal itself. This is a recurring pattern in your behaviors. Please stop making people explain to you the same thing dozens of times over something trivial.Emiya Mulzomdao (talk)12:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for you to make that change in the first place.[21] I did not want to be doing these either. I simply reverted the changes that you made that was already agreed upon, and I also left a talk page in the article so that we could discuss about it too. Specially this part[22] was already agreed to stay that way, and the other edits were already made before.Someone123454321 (talk)00:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I decided to take a rest from this in the first place unless there was new changes, which you just made. I felt frustrated a lot during our arguments too since you were making the same points over and over again that the sources didn't even support while dismissing all of mine. You act as if I am banned, but that is not the case. I am still allowed to contribute to the article, and you will just say that it is disruptive for just about whatever I do.Someone123454321 (talk)22:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this case, the abstract should have been more than enough to make the edit. Abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it directly quoted "Although this view drew opposition from progressive sources." I don't see why there is a need to add the phrase "and moderate" into the article. But we can talk about it on the topic's talk page, not here.Someone123454321 (talk)09:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, abstract gives the summary of the general idea, and it only said progressive. There was no mention of any moderate or whatsoever. That means that the word moderate is just simply unnecessary there. The article's pay walled, so can you quote directly where you got the phrase from? Also, argue this in the article's talk page.Someone123454321 (talk)18:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thrilled at the prospect of more functionally pointless bickering in 2026. It's all so worth it; you've really shown the world how evil South Korean feminism is by writing essays about minor wording changesgrapesurgeon (talk)19:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davey Magras a possible AI chatbot was used by@Nanana77678: for the AFD.[23] They claim that it wasn't AI after it collapsed[24] with them removing the collapsed template and replacing withUsing a text formatter to format manually collected notes does not qualify as LLM generated content. The following reference audit was done manually by clicking each individual reference. Please do not collapse this. Thank you.[25]. This would be later on replaced withThe following reference audit was done manually by clicking each individual reference. Please do not collapse this. Thank you. I am disabled and use speech to text and text formatting tools to write.[26].
The articleDavey Magras has also been attempted PROD[27] and speedily deleted[28] by different TAs, with both being declined. Something seems kind of weird/fishy about this, as two TAs and a new account really want this article to be deleted even after being told the article is fine to keep twice.
Administrators, please intervene. This user is effectively attacking my credibility solely because I require more assistance than others to write. This borders onhounding and is a failure tofocus on content. I am asking for these personal attacks regarding my use of assistance tools to stop immediately so we can actually discuss the validity of the article in question.
EDIT: I didn't expect to have my account and message attacked for requiring the use of assistance tools. I thought I would be welcomed here, so I was anxious and made numerous revisions to my response to ensure my text-to-speech output was clear and formatted well. Penalizing a new user for refining their comments to be legible is the definition of failing to assume good faith.Nanana77678 (talk)16:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks sources to back the arguments. Please fix it. If he truly advocated and there is proof that the extension was due to his advocacy - that is great and worthy. Being a driver in a developmental series alone does not qualify as significant. The suspicion is that the sources are invalid and the claim appears to have been made up to validate the page after the page's existence was challenged. I'm not sure if it's a promotional or marketing group creating these driver's pages for a fee, but they all seem oddly similar.Nanana77678 (talk)17:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore the small minded attacks on my necessary use of assistance tools. I do hope the mods will intervene. I'm not sure if this is coordinated hounding, but it's not okay.Nanana77678 (talk)17:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more respect and delicacy both from OP and the other participants of that AfD towards someone who has openly declared being disabled and using assistance tools.WP:BITE is a guideline after all. I get the impression that some people have tunnel vision concerning AI; sure AI causes lots of problems on Wikipedia, but not to the point where we should forget about civility.Stockhausenfan (talk)17:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this comment before I saw the new comment by OP; I'm glad that the issue was acknowledged; it's just unfortunate that it looks like the damage has already been done and Nanana77678 no longer wants to edit Wikipedia.Stockhausenfan (talk)17:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nanana77678 has exercised their right to vanish, andMysticCipher87(alt-account) (they had stopped using their main account) has retired. A damned shame in both cases. MysticCipher apologised above and offered to withdraw this posting, and the AfD is proceeding with considerations of notability. This should probably be closed.Yngvadottir (talk)02:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For years Ilamxan has been engaging in source misuse, whether in the form ofWP:OR orWP:SYNTH. Despite being told countless times about it, they have continued. There is no doubt many more diffs than "just" these.
5 February 2025 Created theWP:ORAzaris. All the article does it talk about their language and region (which exist in other articles), which makes sense since these people are far from notable, noWP:RS about them as a people exists
In 2025 (can't find the exact date) they createdFeyli people, where they combined several ethnic groups together, despite the very citation they had used being against that. Exposed and deleted in October 2025Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feyli people.
7 January 2026 MoreWP:SYNTH, the cited source did not talk ethnic unrest at all. But because two cleric leaders were of another ethnicity, Ilamxan automatically assumed it must have had been an ethnic unrest and presented it as such (1979 Iranian ethnic unrest)
On their talk page they were recently confronted for doing this[40]. However, they ignored it, and when it was brought up recently on 6 February atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish-Luri identity dispute, they even quitely removed it shortly afterwards[41]. It is really difficult to haveWP:GF at this point.
They have had years to correct their act. And when directly confronted with it, they ignore it. What else is there to do? Their edits do more bad than good. A big issue is Ilamxans source misuse is usually exposed by users who are experienced with these topics and/or has the time and energy to look into it. In other words, a lot of disruptive edits easily go under the radar, and falsely appear as constructive. --HistoryofIran (talk)11:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea that AFD is where I remember this name from. I couldnt figure out the angle there. Have there been any formal warnings? These are two CTOP areas, so some sort of restriction may be on the table, but I like to see a stern final warning is given first and one last chance to shape up. ← Metallurgist (talk)02:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Ilamxan has already been informed of this many times throughout several years. Why would this make any difference? They don't seem to care. And as we speak, Ilamxan just made anotherWP:SYNTH edit[42] (The cited source does not deny that Ali al-Sistani is ofSistani Persian origin (which is itself a possibleWP:OR article, but that's another topic), despite Ilamxan including that. The source simply says that Ali al-Sistani is asayyid and thus an ethnic Arab (which is arguably an misinterpretation/exaggeration of what asayyid is per otherWP:RS, but that's also another topic).HistoryofIran (talk)22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ilamxan, please respond to this thread rather than continuing to edit in related topic areas. In particular, I would hope to see a response regarding the October 2025-February 2026 diffs and respond to the assertion that these edits were not using sources appropriately. On top of the alleged SYNTH/OR issues, there also appears to be more edit warring than appropriate, with most of these interchanges following the pattern of "a) Ilamxan adds text b) HoI removes text c) Ilamxan re-adds text, or adds a subset of it d) HoI removes it again"--rather than proceeding to step c), Ilamxan should be opening discussions on the talk page to address concerns and seek consensus.signed,Rosguilltalk15:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a few images from the article a couple weeks ago (28 Jan) as part of an ongoing rewrite[43]. They re-add them 10 Feb, after a couple revertswe discuss it on my talk page, feel like I was pretty reasonable (they said some silly things). Then 11 Febthey delete 20,000 bytes by restoring a revision before I'd edited it with the edit summaryUndid revisions by User:Kowal2701 reason: under suspicion of griefing (I'd already made them aware of EW and BRD). Iping them to the talk page to explain, not expecting much. Few hours later their editgets reverted byKwesi Yema, they revert that with no edit summary, then commentHave your language model read it for you. I dont know what legitimacy you think you have but deleting valuable information then having a chat model write a bunch of fodder in its place well its called griefing.
Would it be possible to have an admin look at this? If it's not sanction-worthy, what should I've done differently/do now? I've explained myself, tried to compromise, in response to which they blanked weeks' worth of sourced content and restored an OR-ridden version, with no stated reason other than accusing me of "griefing" and using LLMs. The only thing I think I could've done differently was not treat 'my' version as the long-standing one, but as I understand it 2 weeks old is a grey areaKowal2701 (talk,contribs)20:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
user:Trs9k has now harassed me on my talk page (completely without provocation I might add), even after I have asked them to stop. They then commented two more times on my talk page and then another editor suggested I may take them to ANI, so here we are. I think they need a 1-way IBAN from me at this point and a warning to knock off their harassment. I have left it on my talk page for now until this ANI is resolved. Thank you and sorry to waste time with such things.Iljhgtn(they/them ·talk)20:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I never talk to you again it wouldn't be soon enough. In light of your inappropriate argument with another user on my talk page, I'd like to make that IBAN a two-way. –ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ21:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously referring to a comment from May 10, 2025 and only JUST NOW deciding to say anything about it to me? I haven't bumped into you or interacted with you in many months, if I am not mistaken, until you popped up out of nowhere and just startedharassing me on my talk page without cause and in relation to a totally unrelated AfD content dispute that I was having in aWP:CIVIL manner with another editor. That is unacceptable, and a one-way IBAN is what is called for when one editor is targeting and harassing another editor in a one-way manner, I have no desire or interest in every interacting with you again, pulling something out of May 2025 now in mid-February 2026 is bizarre to say the least. What am I missing?Iljhgtn(they/them ·talk)21:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trs9k, you have been told by Iljhgtn to stay off their talk page but you returned to poke at them.Stay off their talk page. The only exception is placing a formal notice required by policy. You are very likely to be blocked for harassment if you persist. Is that clear?Cullen328 (talk)21:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to discuss this further, if this is the appropriate forum to do so. My edit history spans 10+ years, with legitimate information provided in that time. Your comments significantly misrepresent the nature of my account, which, if you look again, features very few actual edits. Where edits are provided, these have been done in earnest.
With regards to the Deliver us from Eva situation, I am confused as to why my edits keep being removed. The fact remains that Mel Gibson is in the film, he has a brief cameo, likely due to his affiliation with production company Seven Arts (a Warner company at the time). For someone to then contact Mubi and tell them Mel is not in the film seems especially petty, given that Mubi's cast list is now incorrect too. I do plan to contact Mubi, as this individual did, but this is challenging when you have responsibilities and a job outside of editing Wikipedia. Again, I invite anyone wading into this petty discourse to watch Deliver us from Eva.Tunaboy45 (talk)08:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tunaboy, once content is disputed and removed, the answer isn't to simply add it back in, as you have done a couple times over recent months. If you still want this information added to the article, you should open adiscussion on the talk page, and try to reach aconsensus of editors to do so.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He is not in the movie. You can keep lying that he is, but one can literally watch the movie, see he isn't in it, see it's not credited on the movie page on IMDB or in any Mel Gibson filmography. It's never been mentioned anywhere. So if you're going to cite it as a cameo, then maybe provide a clip from the actual movie showing it?
There has been a high-intensity edit-war in the article since the beginning of the day between two editorsAddo Adwin (talk·contribs) andMusic.laboratory (talk·contribs). Starting from[44], the edit history of the article has since been bogged down with both editors warring over the insertion of controversies involving rival parties contesting the election. Regardless of veracity, I am afraid that the continuous disruption, which has exceeded 3RR by more than 10 times is degenerating into an exercise in which both users are taking real world problems into Wiki and turning the project into a mudslinging competition.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60].Borgenland (talk)03:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of non-XC editing in this article, including six non-XC editors in the last week, none of whom have receivedWP:CT/SA notifications (which I have now given them).CoffeeCrumbs (talk)07:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbs: To be entirely fair - and we got a clarification from Arbcomm on this - articles aboutelections do not blanket fall under the SASG ECR simply because political parties (which explicitly do) are involved in them. However editing directlyabout the parties on the election page does. -The BushrangerOne ping only00:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do remember that discussion, and the follow-up, but I was under the impression that at least the notifications of the contentious topic area were still considered prudent; the consensus also appears to be in that ARCA thread, per SFR's argument, to "let it slide if there's not disruption," and in this case, there was disruption, so it's not the case of a random SA election article, but a particular one with problems. I kinda wish the aspects of the arguments that achieved consensus in that discussion were made less ambiguous, as there were subtle differences in the arb comments. I'm not quite sure if the paragraph I wrote makes sense.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)03:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In two minds about this one but I think it needs admin attention due to all the warnings about it on their talk page.
The above user does look to be making useful edits in terms of adding archive links for citations.However the reason I'm bringing this here is because the user stubbornly refuses to actually give useful edit summaries to explain their actions. Instead they leave completely unhelpful ones that are nearly always commentary on the article subject or are political statements. Here are just five recent examples:
I just edited all of this Conservative leader! GOTCHA THIS TIME, Kemi![63]
"I'm editing cites about this Secretary of War over ICE forces, DON'T BLAME IT ON PETE HEGSETH!"[64]
"I just edited about sad news on Scott's death. Dilbert forever, ICE out of bounds!"[65]
"I just edited the article about snap election announcement, WE SUPPORT THE IDOLIZATION NOW"[66]
"Edit more cites about the global girl group! We love KATSEYE, and always will!"[67]
The user has been warned several times by different users about these unhelpful summaries but don't appear to be listening or interacting at all with other editors.[68][69][70]
it's an odd one for sure. frankly, i wasn't even sure what to say when i first noticed their edit summaries. it also seems like 90% of their edits are archive links. based onthis diff, it appears they may have come over from JP-wiki, and I would hazard a guess that there's a language barrier going on here. --Aunva6talk -contribs15:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also suspect a language barrier. But given the various other warnings on their talk page for copyright and having no edit warnings they seem to have understood that and then started doing this which almost suggests a deliberateness to it.
yep, looking at global contribs, he has scant edits on other language wikis, all are translation creates, and he's got warnings on at least KO and JA for use of automated translation without due care. i am leaning towardsWP:CIR myself after looking at the whole picture. --Aunva6talk -contribs15:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked from article space. This may well be a case of a user who is unaware of having a talkpage of their own; it happens a lot. The kinds of edit summaries that Rambling Rambler quotes are completely unacceptable, and editing withno edit summary isn't so hot either. I have blocked them from article space, with an explanation on their page and also (crucially) in the block log. If they respond constructively, they can be unblocked.Bishonen |tålk15:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
I see they’ve attempted to be unblocked but they’re clearly incapable of communicating clearly reading their responses. Half of them read as though they were asking the other person wants to be unblocked.Rambling Rambler (talk)09:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's hard to unblock on the basis of those comments. They seem to be throwing in irrelevant phrases like "assume good faith" for no reason other than "that is probably a good thing". Competence is required.Bishonen |tålk13:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]
Have to agree - I was hoping this was a case where I could guide them towards understanding our policies/guidelines, but their responses aren't making a lot of sense.
It feels like they're repeating random sentences back from the page without fully comprehending their meaning.
I really think they want to be helpful, but unfortunately they don't seem able to do so. Hopefully they can channel that enthusiasm towards a different project.Blue Sonnet (talk)17:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning and timing appear similar. I am not making a formal accusation, but I wanted to flag this in case.. administrator believes it warrants review underWP:SPI or any other relevant policy.ButterflyCat (talk)13:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect ✔️ Thank you(: I appreciate it...Just for my understanding — in the future, if I ever need to request an investigation, should i create? If i have evidence..is there any guidance regarding account age or track record that I should be aware of?ButterflyCat (talk)13:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is like a long term abuser, like for example if you have a user named "poopyfarts56" or something, and they get blocked for disruptive editing in like a certain topic area, and another account with a different name does the same sort of editing, probably a sockpuppet, and if they continue to do that again, their trackrecord can be referenced at anytime in a particular sockpuppet investigation, you should create the investigation yourself if you feel you have irrefutable evidence that said user is a sockpuppeteer.
Account age can be used but i have only seen it be used in situations where the sockpuppeteer creates another account like immediately after one of their socks get blocked, so account age can be used in that way
Oh Cool..(:That makes sense. I understand that investigations should only be created when there is a clear behavioural pattern and strong evidence, not just timing or similarity. I appreciate the clarification regarding account age as well.I’m still learning the processes here, so this is helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain.ButterflyCat (talk)13:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well I’m not familiar with the technical systems, but I felt it was necessary to raise the concern because the participation seemed questionable. I just wanted to ensure the discussion stayed fair.ButterflyCat (talk)13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page was modified by user ~2026-96526-3 and FaChol to add this false information about Benchamoul on February 10, 2026.La page Wikipédia en a été modifiée par l'utilisateur ~2026-74926-8 pour ajouter cette fausse information concernant Benchamoul le 10 février 2026.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Luc_Brunel&diff=prev&oldid=1337551896
Xavier Poussard, dans l’affaire Epstein, avait indiqué que le vrai nom de Jean-Luc Brunel était Jean-Luc Benchamoul, alors que sa filiation était très simple à trouver.Xavier Poussard, in the Epstein case, stated that Jean-Luc Brunel's real name was Jean-Luc Benchamoul, even though his parentage was very easy to trace.
From what I gathered from what I can read, the reporter is saying that it's a content dispute based on the person's last name, and that the reporter is related to Jean-Luc Brunel, specifically that they are his brother. I'm only on an elementary level of French like you, so I may be wrong.TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)21:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OP's provided full translation into English on every line. It's a BLP content dispute. OP complains of attempts to have our articleJean-Luc Brunel say that the subject's original surname was Benchamoul, not Brunel. I see that the most recent such edit[71] citeda webpage of an advocacy organisation that itself linked toa French RT report (RT is one of ourWP:DEPRECATED sources) that didn't make the claim that his original surname was Benchamoul. That webpage and report are from 2020; OP says the claim was based on a misreading and has been retracted, which I haven't examined. OP says they're the brother of our subject.NebY (talk)09:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SevereWP:CIR problems. Poor understanding of English and Wikipedia in general. I can’t find a single edit that isn’t problematic or at least questionable/pointless. Reported here instead of at the vandalism noticeboard as they seem to at least be acting in good faith.Dronebogus (talk)00:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isthe 2nd time I'm reportingMmemaigret's incivility and disruptive editing tactics (and now discussion tactics) to ANI.
After her re-engaging in discussion on the pageTalk:Bahamian_English, after a few months of us cooling down, I was hoping for a tentative attempt at actual consensus. Instead, she's berated me withgish gallop-style questions towards no apparent purpose and when I (foolishly?) assumed good faith and answered, has most recently ended with a curtYou have no idea what you are talking about. After that moment, I thought "Do I go to ANI:Incidents or Dispute resolution"? But then I realized... there's no specific topic she seems to be disputing. She's just angry or trolling. So here we are again.
In an evenearlier ANI discussion where she attacked me, disinterested userLiz told herIf you want to have an article version that is 100% yours, I'd suggest creating your own blog or website where only your editorial opinion matters. I'm sure there are plenty of subject knowledge experts on Wikipedia who maintain their own sites off-Wikipedia where they don't have to edit according to the strict policies and guidelines present on this platform. Then, disinterested userRavenswing likewise told her:...many editors exaggerate their expertise/credentials, a large factor in whyWP:OR is a core policy of Wikipedia. Take a look at my user page. I list a number of credentials there. And for all you know, I'mlying about all of them. That's why I don't barge into hockey talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. That's why I don't barge into legal talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way. My having published or contributed to a dozenRPG books doesn't mean I get to barge into RPG talk pages and claim my experience means I should get my way.
In October, when I reported Mmemaigret, disinterested userPhil Bridger simply told herNobody has a monopoly on THE TRUTH™, not even MmeMaigret.Pineapple Storage, true to the anxieties he expressed in the October thread, has not edited theBahamian English orBahamian Creole pages since, scared off by MmeMaigret's behaviors. For the umpteenth time, she is sabotaging attempts at building consensus or legitimate discussion on these two pages.Wolfdog (talk)00:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog This is an abuse of process and should have been referred to another forum such as a 3d party opinion.
(1) Your categorisation of this dispute is misleading. After your latestedit summary of 8 February"How much more pussy-footing doing we need to do?" , I started a discussion with you, with which you engaged for days. I pointed out to you that few of your edits to these two pages are sourced (19 and 44 times respectively). I showed you in a table each change you have made to the first sentence of the lead of the Bahamian English page in the last 5 years and the change you have been pushing since October 2025. I showed that not only was that change inconsistent with the changes you yourself made over the course of 5 years, it is inconsistent with the consensus reached after the merge discussion. Moreover, I have previously pointed this out in an edit summary that it doesn't make sense. I asked you twice to explain what you think Bahamian English is, and what you think Bahamian Creole English is, so that you can explain how Bahamian Creole English can sit alongside Bahamian English rather than being one of the varieties. Instead your first response, which included"It's hard for me to not feel like you're willfully playing dumb here", was to avoid the question. When I didn't take the bait and pointed out that you hadn't actually answered my question, you responded with your own bit of inferential reasoning (ie original research) which is supported by no sources. The reason we are really here is because you've finally realised after 5 long years that you don't know what you're talking about and you're upset because I said "You have no idea what you are talking about".
(2) You have also miscategorised whatPineapple Storage said at the last ANI. Pineapple Storage pointed out that that they've never edited either of the pages and has only discussed matters on the talk page. In addition, Pineapple Storage said they didn't want to be involved in ANI becausethey thought ANI was a nuclear option that should avoided and only used as a last resort. Something you clearly didn't note.
(3) At that last ANI which you brought, you also miscategorised the dispute when you claimed that I edited the page without reaching a consensus but I showed that you had in fact edited the page 9 times without reaching a consensus before I edited the page (removing your unsourced and incorrect material).
(4) What you really should have done is request comments on your latest pronouncement:
Bahamian English is any of the dialects of English native (or if you prefer, that have developed over the last few centuries) in the Bahamas. Bahamian Creole is a language native to the Bahamas that developed with English as its dominant lexifier, while blending features from other languages and developing some of its own entirely unique features in grammar, word usage, phonology, etc. Like many situations of creolization, English and Bahamian Creole are now interlinked in a creole continuum, with plenty of diversity. Are your questions answered? Wolfdog (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
There is no support for action against MjolnirPants, rendering this moot. If there is a desire for actions against Riposte97, PackMecEng or any other editor, please open a new thread or use the extant AE if relevant.StarMississippi22:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This concernsTalk:Imane Khelif which has a ridiculously massive discussion. Being told to fuck off is unpleasant but poking someone about an innocuous and very fair comment (diff) on their talk during that exhaustive marathon is not useful. Sorry, but while your notice was good in that it was well expressed and didn't use a template, it's not reasonable to extend such a "discussion" to user talk. A wide latitude is accepted for venting responses in a situation like this.Johnuniq (talk)08:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur a boomerang is called for here. Riposte97 should have dropped their stick regarding Khelif months ago; it's unsurprising people's patience is becoming frayed.Simonm223 (talk)12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that TarnishedPath and Simonm223 are both pretty involved in the content dispute on that page. Looks like just trying to remove an opponent. Especially since it looks like TarnishedPath has posted way more comments than Riposte97.PackMecEng (talk)14:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Poor conduct /= posted more comments than someone else. Besides an edit just now to replace the CTOP notices someone removed, I hadn't edited that page since 8 Feb precisely because I am jack of the conduct of Riposte97 and others. If you're going to accuse other editors of trying to remove opponents, you'll need to provide evidence or strike.TarnishedPathtalk14:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To PackMecEng's point, yes I am involved in that dispute and stress over that dispute, in specific, was one of the key factors in my recent, extended, wikibreak. To return and find that Riposte97still seems to want to have the article cast doubt on Khelif's gender is upsetting, to say the least. As I said, this conflict has gone on for too long and many editors patience is getting frayed past the point of being able to effectivelyWP:AGF.Simonm223 (talk)15:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that the edit Riposte took issue with was one in which I make it clear I was no longer involving myself in the argument they're so upset over. I would also point out that the argument is over whether we can interpret a single word spoken by a BLP as an admission to something which lies at the heart of a transphobic culture war issue, and that Riposte is very much on the side of "Yes, we can do that." Finally, I would add that, contrary to the very clear claim Riposte made above that TarnishedPath 'failed' atWP:AE, the consensus atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Riposte97 is plainly to give Riposte a logged warning for POV pushing at the very article in question.
Given what I actually said in the comment Riposte took issue with, this was very clearly an effort to provoke a response they could use to make this thread. I think a boomerang is warranted.
And if someone would like to impose an IBAN (one way or two way, I really don't care) between me and PackMecEng, who hasnever failed to defend someone attacking me or make snide comments directed at me or even to gravedance when I ended up on the wrong end of some admin's bit, I would greatly appreciate that. I'm rather sick of being harassed by someone who seems uniquely capable of remaining butthurt about my inability to just go along with blatant POV pushing on this site.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the last year, Riposte97's editing activity has almost entirely been confined to 3 articles and their respective talkpages, Khelif, Donald Trump, andGrooming gangs scandal[72]. Is this really someone who is here to build an encyclopaedia or someone here to push a right-wing culture war agenda?Hemiauchenia (talk)16:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, of course. I have also noticed Riposte's editing history, and took note of it. I wouldn't say that, on its own, it's evidence of anything nefarious, but Iwould say that in the context of them having a logged warning for POV-pushing (in AM2, regardingHunter Biden) and being about to catch another (forImane Khelif, the topic at hand), and the readily-identifiable POV of every talk page edit that discusses content, that Hemiauchenia raises a good point. I would never get behind topic-banning or blocking an editor simply because they confined themselves to their preferred topic, but I also wouldn't dismiss someone pointing out that an editor only edits in one topic in a discussion about POV pushing.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, their edits over the last several years have almost entirely been about pushing a right-wing pov into articles on hot button culture war issues, which in the last several years also includedCanadian Indian residential school gravesites,2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum andHunter Biden laptop controversy. It's obviously not just about the specific articles that they've edited, but that they have a persistent right wing POV to push into these particular articles and they have essentially no interest in editing outside of culture war issues. I believe this falls under the "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia" listed atWP:NOTHERE.Hemiauchenia (talk)16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i know ive seen riposte pushing right wing povs, often outrageous ones too. and list of sanctions is concerning. but diffs on some of these topics they haven't been sanctioned on would improve the argument for an uninvolved admin/community looking in on all this.not meaning to be this much a devil's advocate, but if we are gravitating towardsWP:BOOMERANG/WP:NOTHERE, laying out the evidence clearly would lead to better success, especially articles not mentioned in previous AE/ANI threads.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From just a quick look at the past three weeks or so of their editing:
In addition to those diffs, they've already beentopic banned over right-wing POV-pushing and been given alogged warning over edit warring related to POV conflicts. As I pointed out above, they're on the cusp of receiving another logged warning. I'm trying to decide whether or not to add this information to the open AE case.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this type of stuff really needs to be taken in a very broad view. Only one or two of those diffs would be actionable on their own, IMO, but taken all together, along with the fact that they keep running into sanctions for POV-pushing... It all spellsWP:NOTHERE from where I sit.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not doing this with you. There’s nothing in those diffs for which I feel I need to apologise. There are hundreds of other diffs we could argue about (the only point I brought up in this thread was your profanity), but I am unilaterally disarming because that would be a waste of everyone’s time.Riposte97 (talk)21:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can pingMandruss for their thoughts on his conduct atDonald Trump? But any community sanctions would have to be from editors uninvolved with him. Tbh my impression was that he isn't any more egregious than 'left-wing' POV pushers in the topic areas, he just sticks out more, but idkKowal2701 (talk,contribs)17:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i think i recall seeing some edits w.r.t indigenous school childrens deaths that were fairly gross.but as that was already sanctioned, i don't know about the other pages that could call for a further sanction.and as i dont have time to assemble other diffs in other areas to present a possible case against riposte, or to deal with the drama bomb of having assembled such a case (if such a case exists, as I have not kept up with some of these pages), i once again ask if there is a set of assembled diffs that could make it easier to judge riposte, if that is what some of the editors here are asking for.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)18:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that edit summary. I looked at the background and thought it was on point. OTOH, I thought PackMecEng's post:Looks like just trying to remove an opponent was out of line, particularly since they are not the one's filing at ANI. (I'm not involved in the article.)O3000, Ret. (talk)16:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. But PME's "Looks like just trying to remove an opponent" could equally be said of another filing ...at AE.Against Riposte. Hence PME's cynicism wrt a call for boomerang. However:Regardingthis thread, IOppose a sanction of MjolnirPants, whom I do not blame one iota for flaming out, temporarilly, on his own TP.—Fortuna,imperatrix18:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'm getting here late, but I'll add to the pile-on saying that there is no need to do anything to MPants. And while I'm here, I might as well observe that I'm getting pretty tired of the way PackMecEng keeps showing up in these kinds of disputes and just seems to be raising the temperature instead of lowering it. --Tryptofish (talk)19:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of on topic here, but I unwatched this page a few days ago, following losing my temper. I only saw this from MP's talk. I feel better for it. -Walternot in the Epstein filesEgo20:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I’m surprised to see you agree with that comment. I don’t know what history you share, but at least in this thread, I don’t think PME has said anything worthy of a ban.Riposte97 (talk)20:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed in Talk: The article is written as if it happened from Serbian POV and there is no evidence or trial. Serbian editorUser:Shadow4ya deleted multiple sourced paragraphs and removed all mentions of military personel and equipment in the "refugee" column without any discussion or reason.~2026-98003-7 (talk)08:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@~2026-98003-7, you didn't notify them. I've done it for you.
Instead, ~2026-96085-3 referred to the removal of the text as "vandalism by Serbian", andadded it back in. Shadow4yaundid it again, and ~2026-98003-7, referring to it as repeated vandalism,added it back in. That is where it stands right now.
These TAs failed to discuss it on the talk page AFTER their edit was reverted the first time. Unless this is some mass editing thing, I believe all the TAs are the result of some bouncing around.
Even you failed to discuss any of this on the talk page.
I don't have intention to spend my time talking to some Serbian botnet. No one of them ever responded to the topics in Talk. As I see article was already nominated for deletion since it's possible WP:BLPCRIME and Serbian editors are pushing Serbian POV. Every mention of neutral sources (Human Rght Watch) and even Serbian sources confirming military personel and equipment in the column were deleted.~2026-98302-9 (talk)12:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the only topic on Talk is from 2022. There has been no discussion. If you are the same person behind these TAs, you never communicated on the page or with Shadow4ya. Also, please do not call people botnets.
Indeed,and the IPs are inserting crap in the lead like "It is very important to emphasize that there was also military equipment in that column, which is confirmed by the statements of Serbian authors, and this makes the column a legitimate war target of the Croatian Army." I'm tempted to revert it back to the last good version and semi-protect it, though that is hampered somewhat by the fact that the last good version is, I suspect, at least two years old...Black Kite (talk)14:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up a bit to hopefully make it more neutral. The reality from what I understand is that nothing has ever been "confirmed" because there was never a proper investigation. Serbia and Croatia view this differently. So it's improper language and POV to insert things like "it is very important to emphasize that there was military equipment.." in the lead section based on a comment from a Croatian historian. The HRW report clearly theorizes and doesn't put forth a definitive stance on whether the attack was justified or not. The IP is just cherrypicking what it likes. --Griboski (talk)18:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspect this is an undisclosed paid editor. In January, they editedHusain Al-Musallam to shorten the article'sControversy section. This is suspicious, because the article has been persistently targeted byUPE sockpuppets. (Over the past year, majority of "new" editors who made substantial edits to the article were found to be socks.) After the edits had been reverted and the talkpage discussion had stalled, this editor disappeared. Not long after that, another editor disclosed that they had been paid for editing the article and created an edit request. (I am not saying these two are the same person; the chronology is what is suspicious.)
Another suspicious circumstance is that there already were two conflict-of-interest warnings on their talkpage. These are from 6 months ago, and are not related to Al-Musallam. One of them is related toWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wiideman. Indeed, their comments to the AfD are quite suspicious.
Another interesting fact is that they almost never edit during weekends.
Thank you for taking time to talk on this, first for the case of Steve Wiideman, he is my boss and he didn’t pay me to handle his Wikipedia, I was the one who suggested it to him and when the page got deleted I never tried again.
And for “Husain Al-Musallam”, I was contacted if I can assist to edit the page I said yes and the individual gave me the link, after trying it I told the individual that the page is being monitored and there is high tendency that it will be reverted, getting close to 72 hours after my edit the edit was reverted which I later informed the individual, he promise to pay but due to the reversion the deal was cancelled.
@Enochprecious: I understand. Thank you for clarifying the matter.
I have two questions: Do you happen to know if the individual (that contacted you) was acting on behalf of aPR company? What platform/website did they use to contact you?
If you aren't comfortable with answering, then feel free to ignore these questions.
He is not on behalf of a PR company but on behalf of the main person that isHusain Al-Musallam himself, because I questioned him why he wants it shortened, he response was that it’s too long and the owner wants it shortened as much as possible.
what I am trying to say is, Steve is already my boss before it come to the Wikipedia, when he mentioned about it in my hearing I told him I will do it for him without any intensional of getting paid because me and him has a very close relationship.
This is concerning, but perWP:CRITSECTION, it is preferable not to have a controversies section on a BLP. All of that can be easily integrated into the career of the subject and given appropriate weight, which also makes for better reading on an article. ← Metallurgist (talk)02:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is part of your job regardless of whether you're getting paid specifically to edit, you are a paid editor and need to disclose or you will be blocked @Enochprecious. It is not @331dot's or my perspective, it is policy.StarMississippi02:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Enochprecious It does not matter that your boss does not specifically pay you to make edits or has not instructed you to make edits. (You say he is aware of your actions) Your boss gives you money for your job, so you are a paid editor and you must make a formal disclosure of that. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable.331dot (talk)02:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely wrong on principle (people who flip burgers at McDonalds are not paid editors if they edit the Wikipedia page for McDonalds) but the wrongness is irrelevant because this is obviously a massive COI and no one with a COI on this scale should be making substantive edits directly (whether or not they count as paid editors).~2026-92659-0 (talk)02:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have a very close relationship with the person who pays their salary. It's one thing if the cashier at Walmart edits about the CEO, someone they are unlikely to meet, it's different if the store manager edits about the district manager, their direct supervisor who can determine their salary. By their own admission this user is editing about their boss with their knowledge. A clear paid editing relationship that is not irrelevant because we are dealing with the Terms of Use.331dot (talk)02:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, I am sorry I was wrong
i should have make everything open from the beginning, then I was new to the system though but I am very sorry.
An easy test is: would your boss be happy to see you doing that editing at work? The fry flipper, no, you, yes. The fry flipper, not paid, you, paid. — rsjaffe🗣️03:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant to be disruptive, but this is important.
I'm really fed up about a user who keeps focusing on me every time (kind of like a spy or a stalker). He's not my mentor. It's just the fact that I'm trying to do something normal, and then he just appears and ruins it. For example, I'm requesting some redirects and explaining reasonably, yet he doesn't give a fuck about it and declines them. And since people want to go to the page they want on disambiguations, I'm adding something, and he deletes it. (Like about a month ago, I was requesting two Kendrick Lamar songs with stylizations because they weren't made yet, and he doesn't care.) It just gets to the point where I have to message you administrators about this information. Even today, when I was redirecting to something that was not found inan article, it was actually a real song by him. (Maybe someone forgot to put the song in the discography, and he could have looked it up.) There needs to be something you guys can do to help me from this (like warning him for instance).And here is his name if you were wondering. (Gregory Khachatrian (talk)19:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I've done it for them.
@Gregory Khachatrian, the notice that appears before posting here explained that it's important to do this, it also instructs you to add specific diffs to show what the problem is.
It's not really fair to expect other editors to dig through both of your edit histories to try and figure out which ones you're referring to, and it makes it much less likely that you'll get any response to your post.Blue Sonnet (talk)20:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) There's a template in the notice that you can copy to the other editors Talk page, or you can useTwinkle if you have it installed.
Since I've done that part already, it would be good if you can post somediffs (links to the exact edit from the page history) so everyone can easily see exactly which edits you want to discuss? You can look at other reports on this page to see what's usually expected here.
I've taken a quick look but there's a lot of history and it took me a while, I don't want to misunderstand so it'd be best if you can give us something a bit more specific to look at.
You can see from the number of active posts here that admins won't have a lot of time to review each case in addition to their usual tasks - anything you can do to make things easier for your readers will be greatly appreciated.Blue Sonnet (talk)21:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
finally, their user page implying they are soon to be named an admin at Wikipedia
accompanied bythis 'question' to their mentor, confirming their admin application intent
Cannot find a single, unabashedly positive contribution anywhere; no indication of any serious intent to contribute anything useful to the encyclopedia. So far, nothing but a time sink for numerous editors cleaning up their widespread messes. Requesting indef NOTHERE block.Mathglot (talk)21:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They've also been hitting a specific LTA filter repeatedly - including for the addition of that specific userbox.[75]. I'm not sure how useful that info is, but it's something to note.
Who knows what they mean by that? They certainly don't use English like a native speaker. And I find it hard to predict whether I will be alive in 6+ weeks, let alone whether I will improve some of my languages enough to be able to increase the level stated, which is my best guess as to their meaning. Should be blocked as aWP:NOTHERE fantasist.Phil Bridger (talk)22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was guessing a bit there which doesn't help anything - the bottom line is that they're clearly disrupting Wikipedia (regardless of reason) & it needs to stop.Blue Sonnet (talk)22:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't take me very long to see enough. It does not matter if this is trolling or aWP:CIR issue or both. I have blocked this editor as not here to build an encyclopedia.Cullen328 (talk)23:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Nyxaros has roared past the 3 revert rule on theMarty Supreme page. User citedMOS:ACCLAIM as their reason for warring and was disproved by several editors with sources already in the article, and yet they keep edit warring and reverting. This is not best practice and is extremely disruptive, frankly bordering on vandalism. They’ve been at this for several days nowSoe743edits (talk)05:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do see four reverts by Nyxaros...by 31 minutes within 24 hours, whichis technically a violation but is hardly "roaring past". As it's now been several hours since their last revert, they'll get a warning. Note that it is alsoabsolutely notbordering on vandalism; please readWP:NOTVAND. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism can be considered to be apersonal attack. Finally, this should have been reported atWP:ANEW, not ANI. -The BushrangerOne ping only06:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which was exactly why my post reported as ‘disruptive editing’ and only used “bordering on” as a prefix. I believe it is highly unnecessary to lecture me on the guidelines for vandalism when I specifically did not say they “vandalized” or accused of vandalism. Bordering on implies ‘may come close’ etc, interpretation of words are subjective. Also your tone here does seem to infer picking sides, it would be appreciated if you see fit to stay neutral when handling these cases instead of conveniently taking phrases out of context to reprimand. Thank you.Soe743edits (talk)08:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It was not 'bordering on' vandalism either. Any good-faith edit, no matter howpractically unconstructive it is, is not vandalism or 'bordering on vandalism';WP:WIKILAWYERING about "I didn't actually say that" does not help your case, and neither does characterizing a reminder about Wikipedia's conduct policies as "lecturing". Remember that your conduct isequally open to scrutiny as the editor you're reporting. -The BushrangerOne ping only09:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, by filing an ANI report, you're asking us to pick sides: yours. Jumping on The Bushranger, a respected admin who puts in a lot of thankless volunteer time handling such cases, for not reflexively agreeing with you definitely invites the boomerang. You would be a lot better off learning more about Wikipedia and how it works than to lecture those who already do. Ravenswing12:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated disruptive editing and rule violations by user
Consensus is this is not a matter suited for ANI, and filer has stated they will be temporarily unavailable. Logoshimpo, please listen to the feedback provided by a wide range of editors and ask if you have questions.StarMississippi14:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not the first time I have reported this user (please readthis ANIIN FULL from 5 days ago where I gave the benefit of the doubt by referring to the user asbrand new. I no longer stand by that statement). BothUser:Johnuniq &User:Aesurias warned this user to stop their behavior. They have not. If anything they have doubled down.
I will not restate everything said at theprevious ANI, but all the same issues persist.
On top of that the user has filed a completely bogusdispute resolution noticeboard report because the discussion in question was not going their way.
Once again they have violatedWP:BRD at a new location (AFTER the last ANI was closed and they were warned). This time atTemplate:New York (state). Here when their edit was reverted with a very clear edit summary explaining to seek consensus, theyreverted the revert with a full url edit summary that attempted to link tothis single post thread where they are claiming that consensus has been reached by them posting with no other comments in the less than 60 seconds between the post and the revert.
Additionally they have refused todrop the stick about their pursuit of (to quote them)arbitrary cutoffs in widely used tempaltes despitezero consensus and in fact nothing but opposition by numerous editors at every template that have edited (please consult the user'stemplate talk edits)
I will add that this users familiarity with processes such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, but inability to understand the basics ofWP:BRD orWP:CONSENSUS is both suspicious and concerning.
Requestat the very least a block from the template namespace forrepeatedly ignoring warnings from multiple users until they can demonstrate they understand the process for modifying a template involves seeking consensus for a change when other's object to the change you are making, particularly when you try to force through the samearbitrary change on nearly a dozen templates.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)05:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to Vmanjr post on the relevant talk page now since I was busy checking my watchlist and making replies on other pages chronologically.Logoshimpo (talk)07:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually understand what BRD is, @Logoshimpo? It's possible that this entire discussion is only happening because you don't understand what it means to seek consensus, which is a simple issue to rectify.
The process should have been, as you say: "I was bold, was reverted by you and then I started a talk page discussion."
Instead, it was "I was bold, was reverted by you and then I left a one sentence talk page message before immediately reverting to my bold edit again."aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)06:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's allowed as I continued the discussion on the talk page, which was moved on to the DRN report. The topic of this ani is about a different edit from template:vermont.Logoshimpo (talk)06:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit that Zack is referring to contains "Unexplained content removal." in the edit summary which is clearly false. This seems to be a spurious ani report.Logoshimpo (talk)06:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "completely bogus" about the dispute resolution noticeboard report. It was made after you posted warnings on my talk page and made a threat of my being blocked from editing. Let me add that you continue to cast aspersions with the comment "the discussion in question was not going their way".Logoshimpo (talk)06:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's a specific behavioral issue here. Seems like just inter-editor conflict. Zachmann, the onus is on you to provide diffs showing the alleged poor behavior. I'm not seeing anything egregious.EvergreenFir(talk)06:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AFTER that ANI was closed (with clear warnings issued to this user), they once againremoved content from a template with a summary that doesn't match what they actually did. When Ireverted it with the clear edit summary toSeek consensus first, the userstarted a thread on the talk page and then IMMEDIATELYreverted my revert with a full url/non-wikilink that shows they started a discussion seeking consensus. That is simply not howWP:BRD works and this user has been told numerous times, including at the last ANI, that they need to read and understandWP:BRD.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)06:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you make accusations likea large majority of your contributions are in the template namespace you should really check your facts. Please consultXTools showing that less than 3.5% of my edits are in the Template namespace....Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)06:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will be offline for a bit and may not respond to further posts on this discussion in a timely manner. If any admin needs further clarification on what I have said above,please ping me and I will respond upon my return.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes like this need patience. That's why I suggested notifying me if problems continue. ANI is not a good place to examine the issue so I asked for opinions atthe wikiproject. I suggest that this be closed and discussion occur at the wikiproject on whether U.S. state navigation boxes should be pruned.Johnuniq (talk)10:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. From what I've seen, the problem here seems to be that the editor is running into a hitch at the "discuss" part ofWP:BRD. Saying "please readWP:BRD" can only get you so far when the actual essay is more focused on article editing, and doesn't advise a proper discussion venue for the kind of change Logoshrimpo wants to make. Showing them that part of the process in action would be a better outcome than a block.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!11:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:George Koumantzelis is not, and was never, blocked, and has not edited since 2016; given it's entirely reasonable to consider that in the time since then they lost or forgot their password, creating a new account doesn't count as either sockpuppetry or a failedWP:FRESHSTART, although theyshould disclose the existence of their older account. Now, that said, given some of the edit summaries on their original account, it looks like perhaps theyshould have been blocked, but overall this looks like this may have been better posted atWP:COIN. -The BushrangerOne ping only— Precedingundated comment added09:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're very insistent on getting people's contact details, I presume to carry on the argument?
It's always a little weird when I see people ask for real life info - it looks like they're misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and seem to be under the impression that we're professionals or employees of Wikipedia rather than internet randos.
This sort of thing always makes me a little sad, since they could really help to make the article better if they would just calm down and work with us, instead of against us.
The fact that they've beenthis confrontational for over a decade makes me think that unfortunately won't be happening. I've tried one last time anyway.Blue Sonnet (talk)12:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this 100% as this is less severe than a full block.
They can still request edits via the Talk page and (hopefully) cause less disruption that way.
Since they've only ever edited this one page, it'll hopefully force them to collaborate and learn how to work with other editors.
They are also free to work on other subjects to gain experience if they wish, and things can be escalated to an indef if it becomes clear that they're not interested in following our policies.Blue Sonnet (talk)18:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The user has been repeatedly reverting content without achieving consensus, contrary toWP:BRD andWP:ONUS.• When asked to discuss the matter on the talk page, the user ignored the request.• The user made the following comment: “Who are you? Wikipedia is not your father's platform… don't revert my valid output otherwise I will complaint in ANI and you get block.” diff: [insert diff link]• This appears to violateWP:CIVIL andWP:NPA due to personal remarks and confrontational language.
I have attempted to resolve the dispute through discussion, but the behavior continues. I am requesting administrative review for incivility and disruptive editing.ButterflyCat (talk)09:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been waiting for the past one hour+ for any admin action, but I think no one is interested in taking action. So is minor abuse allowed on Wikipedia? If that is the case, should I also reply to him in the same manner?ButterflyCat (talk)11:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hardly anyone gets a response from an admin within an hour or two - they're volunteers editing Wikipedia in their own personal time as well so please be patient.Blue Sonnet (talk)11:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DOTCOMsun(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has a talk page full of warnings, notices and (in an attempt to get them to communicate) personal messages about various problems with their editing - no sources, unreliable sources, and MOS issues. They haven’t replied or reacted to a single message. Most recently, I’ve tried pinging them in a message, making them aware ofWP:REFPUNCT, but just today they madethis edit, moving commas to after ref tags when they were correctly before the ref tags. Is there any way we can block this user from article space until they start communicating and we can make them aware of the issues with their edits? The problems aren’t major by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s persistent.Danners430tweaks made11:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a number of their edits, and every one of them was contradicted by other things I was able to find. It has happened far too often to be anything other than vandalism, so I've blocked the account.JBW (talk)22:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user by the name of Yellosort930428 keeps going to every single Disney, Hanna-Barbera, actor articles and keeps constantly adding in false information about their voice actors being retired from their respective roles, which is false. Here is his history of his edits:Special:Contributions/Yellosort930428, is there a possibly of blocking him indefinitely because he still won’t stop.~2026-10056-84 (talk)18:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at their contributions reveals instances of them claiming without sources that living people are divorced from their spouse, which isn’t acceptable.Neiltonks (talk)19:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Electricmemory - flat out refusal to acknowledgeWP:BURDEN and civility
Going by their talk page, this isn’t the first encounter they’ve had on this noticeboard, and they seem to have caused a number of problems with other editors, but I have no knowledge of what they are so that’s by the by. It’s pretty obvious though that this editor needs reminding that Wikipedia has PAGs which aren’t optional.Danners430tweaks made19:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For context - these are the two edits that appear to have triggered this -[85][86]. Otherwise minor really - any other editor I’d simply leave a notice on their talk page, but here left a hand written message as Electricmemory had requested not to be templated (fair enough).Danners430tweaks made19:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you're citing says that once unsourced content is removed, it can only come back with an inline citation. I don't understand why you're citing it for someone who adds potentially unsourced content one time and don't revert it back in. I say "potentially unsourced" because it's in a table that has several citations already, and I don't feel like reading websites dedicated to a topic I find boring. Yes, the burden to find citations is on the person who wants to add the content, but someone verbally refusing to acknowledge this is low on my things to block someone over. If the content is already sourced, as Electricmemory says, this could probably be made more obvious, such as using named references (like"Fact 1.<ref name=source/> Fact 2.<ref name=source/>).NinjaRobotPirate (talk)20:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused here - quotingWP:BURDEN:The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - in this case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material - yes it also covers the removal and return of unsourced content, but the addition in the first place of unsourced content is part of that section.Danners430tweaks made20:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain it has been explained to you before that the addition of unsourced content and the addition of unverifiable content are not the same. An editor is permitted to add unsourced but verifiable content to an article. They are not permitted to add unsourced and unverifiable information to the article.Katzrockso (talk)15:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
However, if unsourced material is challenged it is the responsibility of the editor adding/restoring/altering the material to verify content by providing citations. Unsourced content may be removed at any time. I’m well aware of whatWP:V says. This particular editor however seems to refute its existence (BURDEN being a subsection of V).Danners430tweaks made16:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You just stated thatthis case they’re adding/altering, not restoring material. If they are merely adding unsourced material, that is permissible behavior. Unless they are readding material after it has been challenged (i.e. by a reversion), then what is the misconduct here that required bringing this to ANI?Katzrockso (talk)00:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless - I’m more concerned with the fact they’re adding unsourced content, and when challenged resort to personal attacks. I’m not asking for a block - more that they’re reminded that sources aren’t optional, and ofWP:CIVILDanners430tweaks made20:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not POV pushing. I inserted sourced academic content that states that. If you find somehow inflammatory, ok, just do a edit making better worded (I do if you want). Just don't mass remove sourced content because you simple don't like.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10116-44 (talk)20:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable sources, and you are inserting your own interpretation of Primary source. Political daily press (and nationalistic at that) from Serbia are not reliable source in article on academic topics in Bosnia.౪ Santa ౪99°20:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I better worded and simplified that part. Put that Bosnian Studies labels as Bosnian Cyr. And Serbian Studies labels as Serbian Cyr. It's properly sourced.
I have other sources, I will add. The politica daily press is not a political press, but one of the oldest journalism in Serbian. It was a interview with Dr Rada S. Member of institute of Serbian Language of Serbian Academy of Science of Arts. It is a properly source that explain the Serbian Academic Scholar position on this topic.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10116-44 (talk)20:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have at its base a content dispute. Just talk about it on the article talk page, where neither of you seems to have posted about this, and followdispute resolution if needed. And ~2026-10116-44, don't call any edit vandalism.Phil Bridger (talk)20:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All issues are based, one way or another, in content. This goes beyond content dispute. It's POV pushing, yes, but the language and a tone are not exactly what we consider appropriate - and it persists. I have reported this Brazilian IP at least twice for desruption, language, aspersions, and nationalistic pov pushing earlier, and at least once the IP range has bee blocked, but they found the way to reappear. It was always desruptiv, without any attampt to discuss matters, and it was always garnered with nationalistic lingo and attack-tone - we all have limits.౪ Santa ౪99°21:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All editors involved with this dispute are hereby reminded or informed that the Arbitration Committee has designated the Balkans/Eastern Europe as a contentious topic area. Administrators have limited patience for any deviation from theNeutral point of view policy in this topic area. Any type of ethnonationalist POV pushing in this areawill not be tolerated.Cullen328 (talk)21:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this should help at least in toning down rhetoric. This report can be closed now as far as I am concerned as initiator of this report.౪ Santa ౪99°03:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MightyRanger(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), formerly User:Niafied, originally registered their account in 2022, and it was largely inactive until April 2024 ([87]). The account was somewhat active between April 2024 and June 2024 ([88]), followed by another long period of inactivity until October 2025, when they began anti-vandalism work and mass draftification of business-related articles.
Anti-vandalism work is welcomed if done in good faith, but it is obvious from the edit history that this user is acting in bad faith. They likely operate multiple accounts (as there are gaps in their edit history) and, based on private evidence, are an active so-called "Wiki vendor" on Upwork based in Las Vegas. I will not post the real name here due toWP:BEANS andWP:OUTING policies, but I would be willing to share it with theWikimedia Foundation andWP:COIVRT for further action.
User:MightyRanger's draftification spree is problematic for the following reasons:a) They are selective and only draftify articles about competitors.b) They do not notify the original creators about the draftification. This is an important part.c) They assume that all company or businessperson articles are created inWP:BADFAITH and draftify them by default.d) They submit the draft for review after draftification without the consent of the original authors or giving them a chance to improve it. This appears to be a bad-faith attempt to trigger a decline notification.e) They are not a New Page Reviewer (WP:NPP), so this pattern of editing since October 2025 is clearly suspicious.
Draftification is used rarely on Wikipedia and should not be applied to notable topics. Even if a topic is non-notable, it should be taken to AfD rather than using draftification as a backdoor to deletion. Tagging every company article with an undisclosed paid-editing tag is disruptive and violatesWP:5P4. For example,Abhinav Gupta andDeepak Pathak AfDs are some of their bad faith attempts. I hope this does not escalate to the point where a topic ban or indefinite block becomes necessary.~2026-10151-98 (talk)22:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with these anonymous accusations, and I say that as an admin who recently had an article draftified by MightyRanger. When mistakes like this happen the best way to handle it is throughWP:DRAFTOBJECT, which I did, and not in accusing an editor of bad faith with no actual evidence.
I just went throughUser:MightyRanger's edit history and it is absolutely not obvious that the editor is "acting in bad faith," as ~2026-10151-98 claims. Instead, I see in MightyRanger's history an editor who is working hard to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Yes, MightyRanger may make mistakes but all of us do.
User: ~2026-10151-98, if you have any actual evidence to back up your claims you need to share it. Otherwise, comments like "They likely operate multiple accounts (as there are gaps in their edit history)" and "based on private evidence, are an active so-called 'Wiki vendor' on Upwork based in Las Vegas" strike me as a violation ofno personal attacks.SouthernNights (talk)16:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~2026-10151-98, if this depends on evidence that should remain private then you should email the evidence to Arbcom, so they can deal with it. On this noticeboard only public evidence can be used. And there are many reasons for gaps in edit history. You shouldn't assume that they are using multiple accounts. I myself have a gap of several years in my editing history, but I wasn't using multiple accounts.Phil Bridger (talk)19:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've been having long-time problems with a user using multiple IP addresses. Theirmost recent edits regard Bosnian footballerErmin Bičakčić. They have removed relevant content (contract info about him signing for a new club, an image, as well as a separate part about the new club because the "club is not relevant enough and [he] is nearing the end of his career", which is an incredibly subjective and illogic reason). He has also changed the access-date and language format which is currently in use in the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. They have done this to multiple current and former Bosnian national team players' articles (Bojan Nastić andAdi Nalić most recently). Evidently, their main account has been blocked due to some reason, and for years they've been evading further blocks by using multiple IP addresses. I do not intend to edit war with them, while trying to discuss anything with them on any players' talk page is, unfortunately, not going to work (I've tried before). They are just incredibly stubborn and relentless, and their edits are not contributing to anything. What can be done?Bakir123 (talk)22:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cautioned Noahbug05 regarding some infobox issues on Thursday regarding radio articles, where they are adding a link toAmerican English in the language field of 'Infobox radio station', which is to be used to denote a station airing a foreign language format, as an American station with English is by default something to not note; they've been warned about this and other issues many times before (including asserting English-language stations in California carry programming inCalifornia English (which is merely a dialect, not a completely different language).
In response, they declaredthey'd never do it again, but then chose to vanish and have their account locked and renamed, which was an extreme overreaction to several talk messages left by me,@Sammi Brie: and@Neutralhomer: in the last two months to listen to talk page feedback and edit more appropriately, including issues with pagemoves due to a station's move from AM to FM (WBT (AM) toWBT-FM, specifically).
I noticed that they then came back as Noahbug2005 and decided to make theexact same edit toWUSN I warned them many times not to do, just not leaving a link to American English this time. ClearlyWP:CLEANSTART was abused here to 'reset' the talk page and scrutiny, and some action against Noahbug needs to be taken.Nathannah •📮22:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ping here is the first I've heard of this. That is absolutely crazy and wrong behavior, but I will leave it to an admin to dispatch this matter.Sammi Brie (she/her · t ·c)23:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm a little late to everything, but I was surprised he asked to be VANISHed, but disappointedly moreso when he came back with another account. I thought he had potential as an editor, but not like with behavior like that. I agree with the indef, but I'd leave the door open for a potential return so long as he can prove this behavior won't return in the future. -Neutralhomer •Talk •01:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately they've decided to play evasion games and are now back as the TA~2026-10387-34 (talk·contribs). Very disappointed that simply listening to talk page advice instead turned into block evasion after a botched vanishing and they're now making it worse for themselves.Nathannah •📮23:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, that is a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterization. I am simply a yoga enthusiast with an altruistic interest in setting the record straight and have provided a thoroughly well sourced article. True, I never was compelled to edit a wikipedia article before but the inaccuracies in the previous portrayals of Yoga Bhajan were so upsetting and are deeply problematic as well as insulting to victims and dangerous as it could lead more down a confused path. Yogi Bhajan was a proven con-man whose lies and conduct have been exposed as noted in the cited sources, please also see the website "https://abuse-in-kundalini-yoga.com", this info has also been covered in the mainstream media by Vice News and on the HBO Max documentary "Breath of Fire", Bhajan did in fact start what became the 3HO corporation which is described on Wikipedia as controversial and a notably it is well sourced that many unbiased observers consider it to be a cult. Ironically, when Bhajan came to America in the late 60's he was able to take advantage of the lack of information available to the public, nobody could search online and research his history or yoga history. When he was repeatedly accused of sexual abuses 3HO began trying to control the narrative and hide the truth. (the accusations in lawsuits against him include a pattern of genital mutilation of his secretaries most of whom had been born into the cult, separated from their families at a young age, sent to an abusive boarding school before being sent to live with Bhajan, the actual details are far more horrific then has been described in this note or the wikipedia article, please do some researchhttps://abuse-in-kundalini-yoga.com/abuse-and-misconduct-stories/sexual-abuse/). Given the circumstances the article I contributed is a vast improvement, fair and balanced and truthful. In this new age of information let's provide people the opportunity to make informed and factual assessments.AwokenLight (talk)08:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your removals of content have been challenged by other editors. That means you have to discuss it and get consensus for the changes you wish to make. You don't simply get to dictate whatyou want an article to look like, and then edit war to get your way. This is a collaborative project, and your limited edits so far have been entirely edit warring.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)09:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i dont understand any of this. i used to be able to edit wikipedia no problem. now it seems impossible.
i tried to edit in honest, exculpatory info about former nba player rick bruson and a bot reverted my edit before i could even add a reference.
reverting to accusations of sexual assault without letting users put in accurate revisions about his innocence is horseshit.
im typing one fingered to provide accurate info for someone i will never ever meet or know. but somehow im a vandal? fu. you want good info for your project? then let good edits happen.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2026-10256-43 (talk)08:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You cited no source, though I'm not sure whether that was the reason ClueBot NG reverted you. Having looked into this, it seems that your edit was correct, and can be sourced.[89] We clearly need to update the article, or possibly remove the section entirely, given the outcome.AndyTheGrump (talk)08:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ID RATHER HAVE IT NOT GREEN THEN GET CONFRONTED ABOUT "PRECEDIGFIWEJDGFSKWJFH UNSIFGHJKEU" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA IM CRASHING OUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT sorry- anonymsiy.user - (talk)09:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Happens to the best of us. Best of luck with your editing regarding this vandalism incident, and have a wonderful day! Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you'd like help related to signatures and Sinebot.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user originally came to me two weeks ago after Iremoved a line from their userpage saying "This user hates you for being retarded or a jerk or pretending to be a retarded jerk in order to blend in" as a violation ofWP:UP#POLEMIC. Theycame to complain to me on my talk page, and after I replied I thought the debacle was finished. I was checking my talk page today when I noticed the user tried to reply to me on 4 February but wasdisallowed by an edit filter, in which they referred to me as a faggot and rant about how commercial shooter games are "drone and missile guiding systems". I feel this is deserving of a block, but consider myself involved.DatGuyTalkContribs14:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the editor in question has the maturity necessary to collaboratively edit on this project. "NPOVfags" isn't any better[90]. I'm not even sure what to make of their bizarre user page.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I request that the IP range for these three users is blocked indefinitely.
The accounts were previously blocked for 31 hours byMfield, yet when they were unblocked, they immediately returned to adding unsourced/incorrect information on shopping mall articles.
They have also not been responding to the warning messages or the reverted edits that I,Asiess835 andSeasider53 have been giving them. We have warned them at least twice, and as of right now, they have at least 6 warnings total for all the accounts listed for adding unsourced details on their talk pages. Also, they're once again putting something like "Brookfield Properties (50%)Simon Property Group (50%)" on shopping mall articles without providing a source. At this point, I think I can also say their edits violateWP:NOR.
I'm also highly concerned that the editor in question's handle is an intentional homophobic slur. 4 is frequently used as "a" in leetspeak and saying 8s as "eights" ought to make what the slur is pretty clearly (I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to directly saying these types of slurs, even in the context of reporting them).CoffeeCrumbs (talk)15:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding[99] inappropriately placed info with a fake reference toList of T-Series films and restoring[100] it, slightly altered([101]), after it was reverted.
Restoring[105] a previously reverted fake reference toMass Jathara, that was originally added[106] by one TA and had its original removal reversed[107] by a different TA.
Altering[108] and deleting[109] warning messages on their own talk page.
Removing[111] the dead link tag from a fake reference onMark (2025 film) that was originally added[112] by a TA, but had its dates altered and marked as dead by another editor([113]) instead of being removed.
Adding[114] a fake reference and information unrelated to the article toViacom18.
They all have been. The ones that aren't tagged "reverted" are either their own user page, had an intermediate edits by another editor that prevented it, or were undone by hand.Orxenhorf (talk)23:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say not yet. The comment is obviously not okay, and I wouldn't have objected had someone else revoked access. At the same time, I'm still holding out hope that at some point in the future they can regain their composure enough to recognize that they've crossed a line here, and follow their own advice about swallowing their pride.Sir Sputnik (talk)22:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question was blocked for 31 hours byUser:Crazycomputers. Upon the lifting of that block, they immediately resumed making the same types of disruptive edits. Additionally, they still have yet to respond to a single comment on their talk page.
User blocked I have re-instated their indefinite partial block from ITN and related topics, as this behavior was in direct contravention of assurances made during their last unblockappeal. I did that rather than a full indef so that they can still respond here, and it's not intended to be a solution, or to prejudice a community decision below.Mfield (Oi!)06:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Underlying IP blocked by another administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)22:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
![[91]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aEthiopian_Civil_War_(2020-present).svg){kind=link}