I wasasked on my talk page to close this, I don't know whyBuffs chose me specifically, but I am uninvolved with this matter and see no reason for me not to close. As for the substance, there are three proposals below, none of them have consensus. Detail is in the closures of the individual sections below, but in summary the only restrictions Tlupick is now subject to are:
A voluntary pledge not to cite their own work, except in very limited circumstances.
A voluntary agreement not to edit the pageLouise Vincent (the biography of the American harm reduction advocate). This doesnot extend to the talk page or any other page on which they are mentioned.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I previously posted here, on theAdmins noticeboard, requesting Wikipedia administrators review and issue formal decisions on three informal bans that were imposed on me on theCOI noticeboard.
1) A citation ban that forbids me from citing my own books and newspaper / magazine articles. After discussion on the Admin noticeboard, I consider this matter closed.
2) A topic ban onLouise Vincent. After discussion on the Admins noticeboard, I consider this matter resolved.
3) A topic ban onJohann Hari, which was proposed and then agreed upon by four editors on theCOI noticeboard. I oppose this topic ban. The original discussion thread on theAdmin noticeboard was closed after issues #1-2 were resolved, but before the Hari matter could be discussed. I am therefore opening this new discussion thread to address the issue of my informal topic ban on Hari. I am requesting a formal decision in the hope that I will be cleared of a COI regarding Johann Hari.
I edit Wikipedia under my real name and have always been transparent about my past professional interactions with Hari. I will describe all facets of those interactions here.
In 2017, I wrote a book calledFighting for Space (FFS). In researching that book, I contacted Hari and requested audio tapes of interviews he conducted with a deceased individual. He sent them. Hari also wrote a short blurb for FFS’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.
In 2021, I wrote a book calledLight Up the Night (LUTN). Hari wrote a short blurb for LUTN’s book jacket. I thanked him in the book’s acknowledgements section.
I’ve also interviewed Hari for two magazine articles. The most-recent such article was published in 2018.
This is the totality of my relationship with Johann Hari.
Regarding allegation of a professional conflict of interest, as detailed on theCOI noticeboard, I want to emphasize that I no longer work in journalism and do not consider myself a working author. I have not had a single byline published anywhere in more than five years. Hari and I do not work in the same profession; therefore, I question the extent to which a professional conflict of interest can exist. I’ll also emphasize the highly limited impact that a blurb has on a book’s sales, and note blurbs are routinely made among authors of a shared field with little consideration or impact. In addition, both FFS and LUTN are no longer in print. This was all years ago now. Ergo, regarding the Hari blurbs, even any limited influence on sales that might have once existed can no longer be considered anything but negligible. I therefore declare no professional conflict of interest.
No accusation of a personal conflict of interest was ever made. Regardless, I will emphasize here, I have no personal relationship with Hari. We are not friends, and I have no communication with him. I declare no personal conflict of interest.
I argue that a COI topic ban should not be applied forany past level of acquaintance to a topic regardless of how small the degree. COI topic bans should only be applied when an actual COI exists. I argue that my past contact with Hari does not meet the bar for a COI topic ban.
I request a formal decision on my informal topic ban on Johann Hari. I will tag Wikipedia admins who expressed an interest in this discussion in response to my original post on the Admin noticeboard; @Voorts, @Phil Bridger, @The Bushranger. And I respectfully encourage admins to declare no conflict of interest. Thank you.Tlupick (talk)00:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for the self-citation editing restriction, howeverTlupick is reminded that they have pleged to only cite their own work when no other public source is available. While there is no consensus to make this a formal restriction the community is almost certain to take a very dim view if they do not follow through on this.Thryduulf (talk)17:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. I am generally averse to allowing editors cite their own work; I would argueWP:SELFCITE shows that the broader community is too. A topic ban from citing his own work seems like it would resolve most of the problems here.Toadspike[Talk]18:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts, @Toadspioke, respectfully... Wikipediadoes not have an outright ban on anyone ever citing their own work. It discourages the practice. It does not ban it. Therefore, if this specific restrictive action is going to taken against me -- an indefinite restriction on citing my own work -- there should be a clear reason for it. I do not believe one has been put forth.
I have cited my own work in the past, but not to an egregious degree. In addition, where I have cited my own work in the past, I have learned from those experiences, and I now fully agree with Toadspike where they say, "I am generally averse to allowing editors cite their own work." That said, my books contain substantial original research in the areas of the overdose crisis, harm reduction, and histories of drug-user organizing, and I see value in my reserving the right to cite my own work in rare cases when there is no other public source available for citation.
I do not believe this is unreasonable. And I do not believe there is sufficient justification for a ban that forbids me from doing so. That is, I do not believe there is sufficient justification for Wikipedia admins to single me out and impose a ban on self citation that goes a step further than general Wikipedia guidelines. If there is sufficient reason for a ban, it should be presented here. Otherwise, this action would appear arbitrary.Tlupick (talk)23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been singled out by Wikipedia admins. After the last thread was archived, you asked for an evaluation of the proposed topic bansby admins and a review of other editors' concerns about your use of own sources and edits related to Johann Hari. I've obliged you and started this discussion. Other members of the community will evaluate these proposals, note their position, and the discussion will be closed based on whateverconsensus develops. Toadspike's !vote is presumably based on the evidence presented at the prior discussion and COIN, hence why he said that he believes it wouldresolve most of the problems here.voorts (talk/contributions)23:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts forgive me for imprecise language. If a self-citation topic ban is imposed on me by admins without specific justification or explanation, I argue that that would be singling me out. I am simply requesting that if a self-citation ban is imposed, that someone point to specific reason(s) for that ban. Without specific reasons for a ban, I argue that that action would appear arbitrary.Tlupick (talk)00:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeIt seems to me based on the given statement that Tlupick doesn't contest this. "I consider the matter resolved". Implementing something here that no one disagrees with seems unnecessary.Buffs (talk)18:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to opposition. Tlupick has clarified and stated he generally will not and I see no reason to doubt him. I would caution him that if he uses such sources, he should clearly cite that in the edit summary with some sort of stipulation such as "I am the author of this published work. If you feel it is in breach ofWP:V feel free to revert and we can discuss" or something to that effect...an author like you should be able to come up with something more concise.Buffs (talk)22:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs wrote, "I would caution him that if he uses such sources, he should clearly cite that in the edit summary with some sort of stipulation such as "I am the author of this published work. If you feel it is in breach of WP:V feel free to revert and we can discuss" or something to that effect." -- I am happy to abide by this suggestion.Tlupick (talk)23:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tlupick does disagree. He considered the matter resolved after asking that we sequentially discuss these issues. We never got through the issue of self citations at the prior AN thread, so it is not, in fact, resolved.voorts (talk/contributions)18:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs On theWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, it was proposed and subsequently agreed by other editors that I receive a citation ban that forbids me from citing my own books and newspaper / magazine articles. It is my understanding that decisions on the COI noticeboard are informal. I have therefore sought clarification and a formal ruling on the Admin's noticeboard (here) that I be cleared of a self-citation ban. I do not believe that anyone has ever has put forward specific reasons for a self-citation ban to be imposed, and so one should not be applied. Therefore, in order to remove confusion or ambiguity caused by an informal ban, I kindly request that admins decide here that one is not justified and not imposed. Thank you.Tlupick (talk)19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as an informal ban. COIN isn't the forum for imposing TBANs by the community. AN is. I appreciate that you want this addressed. Hopefully a consensus one way or the other will be reached here.voorts (talk/contributions)19:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. You stated at theWP:COIN thatI have no objection to a ban on citing my own work[1]. Are you changing you position from there?
As for the edits in question at theWP:COIN, I'm not sure that they really add any bright-line policy-violating material, but I would suggest refraining from citing your own work for a number of other reasons. This edit[2], for example, adds material about political consequences that are verified by otherWP:RS (see e.g.[3];Owen’s approach to drug users was at odds with many of his colleagues and his political party. In 2002, the NPA selected a different person to run as mayoral candidate in the city’s municipal election.) The anecdote about friends and his wife Brita not supporting him isn't supported by other sources, e.g.[4], which statesAfter leaving the mayor’s office, Mr. Owen continued to advocate for harm reduction and supervised-injection sites, with his wife, Brita, staunchly supporting him, but this could also be the bias of obituaries rearing its head. This article[5] does seem to confirm those claims about his friends;Mayor Owen faced a great deal of criticism, not only from his constituents, but even his own colleagues and friends.Katzrockso (talk)03:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You stated at the WP:COIN that I have no objection to a ban on citing my own work [13]. Are you changing you position from there? No, he changed his mind and then opened the prior AN thread.voorts (talk/contributions)03:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs and @Katzrockso, as @Voots clarified, I changed my mind about a self-imposed self-citation ban and then opened the prior AN thread. I understand this caused confusion. My apologies for that.
I'll now emphasize two points:
1) I do not believe that anyone has put forward sufficient examples of where I have engaged in excessive self-citation to warrant a ban. (I agree that @Katzrockso’s example detailed above from the Philip Owen page comes close. That was a long time ago, and I have learned from that.) Therefore, I suggest a ban is not justified.
2) I have come to wholeheartedly agree that I should refrain from citing my own work on Wikipedia, as multiple admins here have suggested. That is how I intend to edit going forward. I only oppose a total self-citation ban for the very rare possible instance when I may find that no other public source is available. If admins here vote to oppose a ban, I promise to exercise this option very rarely, if ever.Tlupick (talk)22:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not believe that anyone has put forward sufficient examples of where I have engaged in excessive self-citation to warrant a ban. Therefore, I suggest a ban is not justified. In addition, I agree that I should refrain from citing my own work on Wikipedia, as multiple admins here have suggested. I pledge here, that is how I intend to edit going forward. I only oppose a total self-citation ban for the very rare possible instance when I may find that no other public source is available. If admins here vote to oppose a ban, I promise to exercise this option very rarely, if ever. Thank you.Tlupick (talk)19:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against a topic ban from Johann Hari. Contributors generally agree that Tlupick does not have a conflict of interest with Johann Hari and that their edits to that page have been at least broadly reasonable.Thryduulf (talk)17:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Despite the well-written appeal by Tlupick, I have tosupport this topic ban as well. My support for this topic ban does not hinge on whether Tlupick has a conflict of interest with Hari "on paper". Taking the background given above at face value, I would generally say that an editor who has had minimal contact with a BLP subject and none in the past ~5 years probably doesn't have a conflict of interest. However, Tlupick's edit history shows that he is unable to edit neutrally on the subject of Johann Hari.
Tlupick's most recent edit to theJohann Hari article is[6], which has the summary "Removed salacious and unnecessary sentence about Hari's personal life as a gay man." The source cited for the sentence in question is an articleby Johann Hari. Clearly Hari himself had no problem sharing (proudly flaunting?) this information publicly. I don't see why we should then refrain from including it, and I especially take issue with calling it "salacious". Most of Tlupick's previous dozen or so edits to the page consist of revert-warring with several other editors. An example is[7], which was removed as "WP:WEASELish promotional language" – I agree that "popular programs" is promotional, while "frequently participates" and "regularly appears" are also very subjective. All of the sources cited are primary (the programs he appeared on), which is completely insufficient to support such wording.Stuff like[8] is clearly promotional – on its own it would not be concerning, but in the broader context it's a clear example of a pattern of biased editing.Toadspike[Talk]18:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike, thank you for your thoughtful reply. You have written, "My support for this topic ban does not hinge on whether Tlupick has a conflict of interest with Hari ‘on paper’. Taking the background given above at face value, I would generally say that an editor who has had minimal contact with a BLP subject and none in the past ~5 years probably doesn't have a conflict of interest. However, Tlupick's edit history shows that he is unable to edit neutrally on the subject of Johann Hari."
I question whether a COI topic ban should take into account an editor's contributions to a page. Does the editor have a COI or not? Based on pre-existing facts, if they do not, they do not. And that would seem to be your opinion of me and the suggestion of a COI topic ban on Johann Hari.
My edits of the Hari page have been far from perfect. Specifically, they have been more positive than negative, and I agree this could be interpreted as biased. I have also used promotional language, although I believe most instances of promotional language occurred earlier in my editing of the Hari page and can be attribute to a Wikipedia learning curve, and one from which I have learned and since applied those lessons. If my infraction has been to make mistakes and contribute to Wikipedia without first understanding best practices, I should be tutored, not punished with a topic ban.
Furthermore, I argue that any contributions that I have made to the Hari page that are perceived as biased toward the positive have primarily occurred in response to a small number of editorswho have brought their own biases to the Hari page in the form of overly negative contributions. These editors haveacted as unfair gate keepers and exercised their negative biases by persistently refusing to allow anything positive on the Hari page. They have created an overall picture that significantly departs from a neutral presentation of reality.
Another editor recentlysummarized one of my primary issues with the Hari page on the Hari Talk page: "I was struck by how prominently past misconduct is foregrounded, while much of his subsequent work, reception, and ongoing professional activity appears either minimized or framed primarily through critique. The plagiarism issue is real and well-documented, and it belongs in the article. But it does not seem to be the entirety of his career or how his work is generally treated in most reputable sources today."
If my contributions to the Hari page are to be weighed in an evaluation of whether a COI Hari topic ban is imposed, I respectfully ask that I first be given the opportunity and time to explain what I believe are significant problems with the Hari page. These problems are what prompted my initial interest in the Hari page, and so are important in understanding why I have attempted to make the edits that I have.
I will explain the allegations I’ve made here in greater detail by Jan 31 (as a self-imposed deadline). Thank you for understanding time constraints, and thank you for your patience and consideration.Tlupick (talk)00:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I argue that any contributions that I have made to the Hari page that are perceived as biased toward the positive have primarily occurred in response to a small number of editors who have brought their own biases to the Hari page in the form of overly negative contributions. These editors have acted as unfair gate keepers and exercised their negative biases by persistently refusing to allow anything positive on the Hari page. They have created an overall picture that significantly departs from a neutral presentation of reality. Please readcasting aspersions. I recommend you retract these comments about the motives of other editors.voorts (talk/contributions)01:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I retract them. And I apologize. I did not intend for those remains to cast aspersions. I was only trying to provide a very brief summary of the issues I intend to explain further. I intend to keep the subject of this thread on content, not editors, and I apologize if my preliminary summary of these related issues fell short of that goal. I retract them and I apologize.Tlupick (talk)19:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs, please forgive my ignorance, but what's the correct procedure to do that? Do I use the "edit" function at the top of this thread and add astrikethrough font over that text? Thanks for your guidance.Tlupick (talk)20:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that was removed is obviously notWP:DUE for inclusion, it's a trivial factoid that does not belong in aWP:BLP, whether or not the statements wereWP:ABOUTSELF or written by a third-party. We should commend @Tlupick for removing such unencyclopedic material from the article rather than impose sanctions on such a basis. As for the term "salacious", the first definition I located statedhaving or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that the sentence in questionIn a 2002 article, he stated that he had had sex with men who were members ofhomophobicfar-right andIslamist groups isnot salacious. Indeed, a later editor (Drmies) removed all mention of Hari's sexuality from the article.
Oppose While a COI might have existed at some point, I concur with the general topical inputs of Tlupick, though not necessarily the specific verbiage. The fascination with publicizing Hari's sexuality (which isn't notable) as well as sexual activities (again, where's the notability of this?) is unnecessary and appropriate to delete. I think Tlupick's assessment that it was a "salacious and unnecessary sentence about Hari's personal life as a gay man." was apropos, if not at least a reasonable edit upon which reasonable people could disagree. Adding what he's done in 2025 as a social commentator on multiple high-profile shows is a reasonable addition, even if the exact verbiage wasn't ideal. I do not concur thatthis edit is "clearly promotional" when the previous version of the sentence was not. I would also caution Tlupick to avoid casting aspersions. Just present the facts and let wikipedians decide for themselves/let the chips fall where they may.
Addendum re: salacious content: On the talk page, there was unanimous agreement to remove that sentence by all parties[9][10], albeit for different reasons. Salacious is defined as "arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination". It was clearly an attempt to add sexual content that wasn't necessary nor notable. Literally no one at the time (2 months ago) felt it was an appropriate addition. Therefore, I find the claimI don't see why we should then refrain from including it, and I especially take issue with calling it 'salacious' both misleading and void of reasoning.Buffs (talk)02:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the sentence about that diff. You are correct that it's bad evidence that I completely misinterpreted. I have now struck that part.
A valid reason to remove the "salacious" line (mentioned on the talk page) is that it was cited to a primary source and thusundue. But it being "salacious" on its own isnot our concern. I was not aware of the talk page discussion when I posted my above comment and thus only saw the rationale in the edit summary, which I still hold to be insufficient.
Now, if we are applying the rules, we must apply them consistently, and that makes the wording added in the remaining diff, supported solely by primary sources, especially concerning.
That said, I'm now much less convinced this tban is needed. My initial response was based on a cursory review of Tlupick's edits to the page, and I thought I had seen enough. Evidently I have not, so I will take a closer look in the coming days and either strike my !vote or present further evidence to support it.Toadspike[Talk]05:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I find the quality of Tlupick's edits to be mostly benign and or reasonable. Reasonable people can disagree on what "appropriate" is. I can chalk up much of what Tlupick did inappropriately as noob errors. I have no dog in the Hari fight. I know nothing of significance about the person. My interest is little more than a passive one where I just stumbled onto it viaWP:AN. I believe that, while Tlupick may have gone overboard, I think he is also generally correct about editing the article to present aneutral view of the man. COI concerns seem to be largely based on winning the argument via exclusion, not a genuine conflict of interest.Buffs (talk)02:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the proposal that I be topic-banned fromJohann Hari, I am writing to explain my interest in the Hari page, and to explain issues I found there that led to my sustained interest in the page. I ask that this information be taken into account by admins and editors when deciding to support or oppose a topic ban on Hari.
I did not begin editing Wikipedia with any particular interest in Hari. I wanted to write about significant figures in the North Americanharm reduction movement, as it the subject of two books I wrote in my former career as a journalist, and because I found it to be an area lacking coverage on Wikipedia. The first Wikipedia page I created wasLiz Evans. I also wrote aboutPhilip Owen,Bud Osborn, and made small contributions to a few other individuals andrelated topics. Then I found the Hari page. Hari’s work,Chasing the Scream, is a significant book on the subjects of harm reduction and the war on drugs, and so Hari is a person of interest related to harm reduction.
The page is overwhelmingly negative, and the vast majority of the entire page relates to events during one period of 2008-2011. During that period, Hari was involved in multiple professional scandals, including plagiarism and the malicious editing of Wikipedia. So negative coverage of this 2008-2011 period is justified. But since 2015, Hari has published four books, all of them best-sellers in many countries. He become a celebrated public speaker with one of the most-viewed TED Talks ever, was made a repeat guest on high-profile shows such asReal Time with Bill Maher, and received public praise from the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Hillary Clinton. (The significance of any of this can be debated. I list these events here simply to illustrate that Hari’s career continued beyond 2011.) Before 2011, Hari was a young newspaper reporter, albeit one the subject of high-profile scandals. Sine 2015, his career and influence have grown in many ways. But this post-2015 period (which happened to be more positive for Hari) barely received a mention on his Wikipedia page, thus creating an overall negative picture that differed from reality and was also simply out of date.
Here are four examples of specific content on the Hari page as it existed in November 2024 for which I had concerns.
1) Page intro lacking balance and citation
The intro section for Hari concluded, “He has since written books on the topics of depression, the war on drugs, the effect of technology on attention span, and anti-obesity medication, which have attracted criticism for inaccuracies and misrepresentation.” I argue that while Hari’s books contain errors, they are minor errors, and the sort of criticism that many high-profile nonfiction books attract, in part because it is very hard to write 400 pages without a few mistakes slipping through. (This is my take; you are free to have your own.) Yet this significant statement is included in Hari’s Wikipedia intro (and therefore the very top of his Google results) without any balance, such as noting his books have also attracted widespread acclaim, and even without citation. I was not able to see this section improved, and I believe it remains that way today.
2) Inappropriate content
The page included multiple instances of salacious content that simply had no business on anyone’s Wikipedia page. One example: “Hari is gay.” Another example: “In a 2002 article, he stated that he had had sex with men who were members of homophobic far-right and Islamist groups.” A third example: “David Allen Green noticed that an 'methuselahproductions' email address associated with the David Rose identity [Hari] had also been used to post incest erotica.” I was eventually successful in seeing this content removed, but it took me significant effort and multiple debates with other editors who argued it should be kept on the page.
3) Overly detailed accounts of minor negative events
Where Hari’s post-2015 books did receive coverage on his Wikipedia page, it was entirely negative, even when the events described were minor in nature. For example, the page read: “Restaurant critic Jay Rayner criticised Hari for incorrectly stating, inMagic Pill, that Rayner had taken Ozempic.” Another edit that was deleted before November 2024 stated, “Hari apologised on X, saying that he had confused the article by Rayner with an article by Leila Latif in the same paper.” So this was a simple mistake, and one that Hari apologized for publicly and immediately. But the description of the mistake was kept on his Wikipedia page while Hari’s mea culpa was deleted from the page. I argue such a minor mistake does not justify inclusion on a Wikipedia page at all, but if it does, surely a related apology should be included, too. I was not able to see this section improved, and I believe it remains that way today.
4) Problematic editor conduct
Without assigning motive, I will note two examples. A “neutrality of this article is disputed” banner wasremoved from the Hari page without any agreement or even discussion. In addition, in late-2025, editors used the “revert” function to restore the entire Hari page to a version from early-2025, and repeatedly did so without describing their concerns related to specific edits, and without explaining their reasoning for taking such a drastic action. I believe this was in contravention of Wikipediarevert guidelines.
There were many other problems with the Hari page as it existed when I found it in November 2024, and there are many problems with how it exists today. I will limit this post to those four examples for the sake of brevity, and because it is not the goal of this thread to correct every issue with the Hari page.
I share these four examples to illustrate my initial interest in the Hari page, and to explain that these issues were the reason for my sustained interest in the page, not any conflict of interest.
All four examples above can be debated. That’s fair. But I think we can agree that they are issues that a reasonable personcould find problematic, and therefore can be considered understandable reasons for an editor’s interest in a specific Wikipedia page.
My edits of the Hari page should be viewed in this context.
I edited the Hari page because I wanted to correct something I viewed as unfair and inaccurate. The overall picture of Hari’s career on his Wikipedia page is simply not an accurate reflection of reality.
It can be argued I eventually become over-zealous in my editing of the Hari page. And at times, I became frustrated with opposition to my edits on the Talk page (although I believe I always maintained civility). But I suggest these imperfections in my conduct do not warrant a topic ban.
In addition, I encourage Wikipedia admins to review the Hari page and evaluate why it has been so difficult to add what I maintain is only balance and fairness to the page. After one year, I remain unsuccessful in improving the page. Whether or not I am issued a topic ban on Hari, I hope that admins and/or other editors will pay attention to this matter, agree with some of my concerns, and work to correct them.
Oppose. I previouslydescribed my past relationship with Johann Hari, and I argued it does not meet the bar for a COI, let alone a COI topic ban. I also previously posted alengthy explanation of my interest in the Hari page, which I believe speaks directly to additional reasons for voting against a topic ban on Hari. For the reasons described at these two links, I oppose. Thank you.Tlupick (talk)19:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against a topic ban from Louise Vincent. Tlupick has voluntarily stated that they will not edit theLouise Vincent page (the biography of the American harm reduction advocate), and contributors wish to see them stick to that. This restriction doesnot extend to the talk page or any other page on which they are mentioned. Tlupick did not, prior to this discussion, understand what a topic ban being broadly construed would mean and so did not knowlingly agree to be bound by one. As no editors support imposing such a ban here, this can be considered either a successful appeal of the topic ban imposed in December or an unsucessful proposal to impose a topic ban where one did not previously exist - in practical terms the outcome is identical.Thryduulf (talk)17:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since no one has seen fit to add this and it was brought up in the initial statement, I'll go ahead and propose this with the intent to shoot it down so we have a place for evidence (if any is provided):Tlupick (talk ·contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related toLouise Vincent,broadly construed.
Background: I wrote a book about Louise Vincent and one other woman (Jessica Tilley). After the book was published, Ms. Vincent (now deceased) wrote an article for an online publication that was highly critical of the book. In journalism (my former profession), a subject's criticism of a journalist does not qualify as a conflict of interest, and certainly not one severe enough for a newspaper to ban that journalist from writing about that subject in the future. (Imagine if Justin Trudeau could stop a journalist from writing future articles about him by criticizing that journalist. Journalism wouldn't work.)
All that said, I understand that standards for Wikipedia are different from those for journalism. And though I hold no ill will toward Ms. Vincent whatsoever, I can appreciate how the perception of a COI exists. I therefore do not oppose a topic ban on Louise Vincent.Tlupick (talk)23:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Self-restraint is all that is needed here. If you aren't going to edit because you feel a COI could exist, then it's simple enough to state so and a topic ban is not needed. Starting this section here is more procedural than anything. If no one is going to put forward evidence of malfeasance/inappropriate edits/actions, a topic ban is not warranted. If you say "I'm not going to" and then you do...that would be grounds to bring you back here for a re-evaluation.Buffs (talk)02:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I read that twice to make sure who closed it, but you're correct and this is an error on my part. I still believe it to be ill-advised for this relatively new user to accept such a TBAN and it seems to be that the purpose of this discussion is to see if such restrictions are warranted. But it appears I am alone in my opinion...so be it. I'll restore it.Buffs (talk)16:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the prior AN discussion. The Bushranger closed it and logged the restriction. I also don't see how I'm involved. I've only engaged in an administrative capacity here. I haven't !voted in this discussion and my last discussion at the prior AN thread with Tlupick was talking things through with him.voorts (talk/contributions)16:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...you asked for an evaluation...I've obliged you and started this discussion. As you started this discussion to include the topics at hand, I find it to be at least inconsistent if you also close discussion as well. I also don't find it to be with malice or ill-will (I hold no grudge towards you), I just find it to be somewhat improper and introduces a COI (being both the opener and closer) that isn't necessary.Buffs (talk)19:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I started the discussion in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. Admins starting sanction discussions does not make them per se involved. Additionally, there's already a voluntary TBAN in place. Tlupick can appeal it if he wants, but even if no consensus is found in this discussion to impose a community TBAN, that won't vacate the voluntary one.voorts (talk/contributions)19:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
He would need to appeal. I don't know why you're arguing to lift a TBAN that the banned user himself has agreed to. It's not your place to appeal on Travis's behalf. He is more than capable of advocating for himself.voorts (talk/contributions)21:38, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And, to me, that seems sufficient. However, this is atopic ban and those are generally considered to be "broadly construed". So if you edit a page about something she was heavily involved in or her coworkers or any of a number of other topics, that could be considered a violation of that ban. I don't think you were apprised of that and it's worth clarifying the extent of such a ban/voluntary refrainment.Buffs (talk)19:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One example of this would be to clarify which Louise Vincent we're referring to. Apparently there are at least 2 people of note that share that name. One is an British actor who was noted inA Saturday on Earth,Chanel Solitaire, andWitch Way Love (among others not listed on WP) and the other an American activist. People have mistakenly put this actor's link to the activist in error. If you were to (quite reasonably) go and either create a disambiguation page or fix the links in these articles, you could be subject to a block...I don't think that's your intent by accepting such a restriction.Buffs (talk)19:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking clarity on one aspect of the proposed topic ban onLousie Vincent (American harm reduction advocate). @Buffs wrote, "So if you edit a page about something she was heavily involved in or her coworkers or any of a number of other topics, that could be considered a violation of that ban." -- I did not understand this, and I strongly oppose any ban that prohibits me from editing the pages of organizations or individuals to which Ms. Vincent was related.
I've become confused by the back and forth between admins in the thread above. Can someone please tell me what specific action (if any) I need to take to secure the ability to edit such pages in the future?
Perhaps the simplest answer is for admins here to take my word that I will refrain from editing the Louise Vincent Wikipedia page, and leave it at that?
The totality ofall edits I've ever made to the Vincent Wikipedia page are minimal and largely insignificant. And as soon as another editor requested I stop, on account of a perceived COI, I immediately did stop editing that page.
Can we simply record here that I've promised to refrain from editing the page in the future, and clear me of any topic ban on Vincent?
Personally, I am fine with that. Based on your reply above, I do not believe you accepted aTopic Ban with the full knowledge of what it entailed. As such, clarification here would be a reasonable discussion for the community to have and for you to receive guidance. If there is consensus that way, I think rescinding the TBAN is the most appropriate course of action. If not, consensus the other direction would rule the day and the TBAN would be confirmed. I would like for other members of the community to weigh in.
I'll add that you're allowed to make a statement (a.k.a. !vote or Not-vote) as well in any of these matters. Simply put oppose or support and your rationale.Buffs (talk)20:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't believe that anyone has put forward evidence or examples of misconduct to justify a topic ban on Louise Vincent. As noted previously, the totality ofall edits I've ever made to the Vincent Wikipedia page are minimal and largely insignificant. And as soon as another editor requested I stop, on account of a perceived COI, I immediately did stop editing the page. In addition, I have voluntarily promised to refrain from editing the page in the future. Thank you.Tlupick (talk)19:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Request that an uninvolved admin close this discussion. It's been 10 days since any significant updates and no one else seems willing to contribute. I believe the user's statement that he will refrain from such controversial postings. As TBAN's are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I don't see harm in removing them. Furthermore, from my reading of those who contributed, it looks like opposition to these impositions rules the day, but I'll defer to the closer to read and handle as they see fit.Buffs (talk)23:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if closed, could the uninvolved admin consider notifying the WMF board of trustees, as it involves governance and policy issues (AI, paid editing, coi, donor receiving grants)Wakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b03:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does not involve AI, paid editing, or grants. There is an accusation of COI, but that's a broad term and the locus of the discussion. Everyone has SOME COI if they are interested in a topic. The question is whether it is unethical. In this case, it's clearly disclosed and the author in question has stated he will specifically refrain from such contributions...so no COI exists any more.Buffs (talk)15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OKA is aSwiss non-profit that providesmonthly stipends to full-time contributors and translators andleverage AI (Large Language Models) to automate most of the work. OKA editors are required to make a PAID declaration.
OKA’s metawikiInstructions for editors describe extensive machine/LLM-based translation workflows including toLeverage Grok as a starting point. They're explicitly encouraging use of general-purpose LLMs for translation.
Their publicGoogle Sheet tracker includes a tabSimplify lead with instructions directing editors toInstructions: pick an article, copy the lead section into Gemini or chatGPT, then review if some of the suggestions are an improvement to readability. Make edits to the Wiki articles only if the suggestions are an improvement and don't change the meaning of the lead. Do not change the content unless you have checked that what Gemini says is correct!
October 2022 at WP:VPM: OKA FounderUser:7804j announces the formation of the non-profit. Early responses showed machine-translation errors, poor English competency, duplicate articles, overproducing low-quality pages that volunteers then had to clean up.
many of the results are very problematic, with a large number of WP:CFORKs, editors who clearly have very poor English, don't read through their work (or are incapable of seeing problems) and don't add links and so on. As the OKA instructions linked above make clear, these are machine translations, with all the problems that brings.link
the translations include duplicates of topics we already havelink
My understanding is that professional translation usually requires natives of the target language for the best result and so the OKA might be going against the natural flow. Apart from command of the language, there are also social factors to consider. The English language Wikipedia is rife with conflict and even native English speakers are often discouraged or driven off.link
November 2022 at WP:VPI: Suggested tighten controls on translations with flagging of low-quality translations by OKA editors with inadequate quality control and translator English proficiency.
In recent months I'm seeing a number of translations, from Spanish and Portuguese, of long and important articles on art history that might or not be machine translations (probably they are) but are certainly not checked by anyone competent in Englishlink
November 2023 at WP:COIN: OKA editors producing new articles containing lavish tangential detail that might function as subtle promotion, with machine-translation artefacts.
The church article is a way too faithful translation of the German one, without a look at that English church articles should look different ... I would not know where to start to bring the product in line with the English Wikipedia ... articles like that add work to reviewers, perhaps more than they provide facts to readers.link
The trouble is, they are machine translations by people often with a really poor level of English. They are not adding new content, just translating the whole of the German or whatever article they've chosen. If they bother to do any checking through, which mostly they don't seem to, their English is too poor to spot even glaring and basic mistakes. The linking is always terrible.link
OKA creates several thousand new articles per year (99% of which are translations), so I have concerns that if all of these were to go through AFC, it would completely clog the process and makes us unable to operate. We will test it but, given the circumstances, there is a real risk we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages with less stringent paid editing policieslink
June 2024 at WP:VPP: A discussion on if OKA editors should go through AfC. Cited recurring problems like minimally edited machine-translation prose, awkward titles, poor linking/categorization, no aftercare, and content forks/duplication with AfC justified to protect enwiki from extra cleanup burden.
Our core principle is that our translators are free to work on anything that interests them. We provide them with a monthly stipend, some training on how Wikipedia works, but we then see them as volunteer contributors on whom we impose some process to ensure they do not abuse the grant and provide overall value (eg, quality checks, quantity checks). To help them find articles to translate, we curate an optional backlog ... Articles of this tracker primarily consist of "Featured" and "Good" quality articles from other Wikis, as well as red links from these articles
We're not paying per quantity, but per hour of work and instructing that people should focus on quality. Our translators are also paid when they work on improvements of existing articles.
They have caused a lot of work; mostly these are machine translations by people whose English is rather poor.
I've seen no evidence that OKA translators are creating unedited machine translations.
7804j has never denied that these are machine translations, and they normally appear on en:wp in a single edit, & are not edited further except for a couple of tidies. There is no evidence that they are edited machine translations when OKA bow out, and they should be treated as "unedited machine translations"
The school's significance gets lost among the minutiae of historical enrolment numbers, timetables, uniforms, and report cards – details that might just be acceptable in an institutional history published by and for the school, but have no place in an encyclopaedia which is supposed to summarise sources, not reproduce trivia from the school's newsletter archive.
01 January 2026 at WP:ANI: An OKA editor repeatedly broke infoboxes, large translation overwrites that introduced MOS issues, and failure to communicate. Temporarily blocked, then unblocked and resolved after editor promised to be more careful.
I have also twice reverted their edits with a summary explaining that communication is required and that they are breaking the page
article edits all appear to be expansions by overlaying all or most of the article with a translation
it is clear that the rich in preserve a rich and varied folklore from Acadian folklore isn't in the original frwiki text (and neither is the *relevailles* markdown). Not looking good
07 January 2026 at WP:AINB: Unreviewed / poorly reviewed AI translations with synthesis and promo-language by an OKA editor. Unresolved.
There is AI text that does not have any counterpart in it, most of which are synthesis tacked on to paragraphs
The ongoing VPP thread which prompted me to create this AN report
January 2026 at WP:VPP: The thread starts with OKA FounderUser:7804j asking whether the newWP:NEWLLM policy also effectively bans LLM-assisted translations that are, which would disrupt the OKA model. Also includes an example of a OKA translated article containing info not verified by the source.
AI translations do not tend to be faithful to the original, and the text that deviates tends to contain the usual problems with standard AI-generated text. In practice the level of review being done is far short of that. For example, this "translation" inserted an entire chunk of text under "River transport" when the corresponding section in the French article was completely empty.
The level of human review to AI additions is, quite often, very insufficient
However, looking at the provided page number, 147, it doesn't talk about the La Bourdonnaye family at all – instead, the families listed on that page range from Cadelac to Cado.The actual mention of Bourdonnaye, on page 114, does not talk at all about them originating from a lordship in Trégomar, Côtes-d'Armor. I am worried that you might not have actually checked the sources that you have been adding, and I would be happy to see evidence of the contrary.
Edit quality: OKA editors are making large-scale changes that introduce errors and LLM artefacts.
Overwrites: repeated overwrites of existing articles during LLM-assisted translation which breaks templates/infoboxes, and makes it hard to review because they're not incremental changes.
Coordinated mass-editing: OKA trackers indicate various planned campaigns for mass changes (e.g. the Simplify lead campaign) affecting large numbers of pages without on-wiki discussion or consensus.
QA: from the outside, it’s not clear what OKA’s actual QA looks like (vetting, onboarding, supervision), given the above outcomes.
Edit quality & Overwrites: OKA editors using LLMs to translate must check for quality and accuracy (also pending an LLM translation policy RFC). OKA editors performing translation expansions on existing articles must use incremental edits rather than text overwrites.
Coordinated mass-editing: Editing campaigns should either have 1) on-Wiki consensus on the affected articles before edits go ahead or 2) required to submit their proposed changes via Edit Requests on the article Talk page.
QA: OKA to provide documentation regarding their hiring, onboarding, and supervision processes. How do they assess English competency? How they check that LLM output hasn’t added unsupported content? etc
This is a long-running and serious problem (some of the ye olde quotes above are by me) & while the suggested remedies would be fine if they were made to work, it has long been clear that7804j is only intermittently interested in engaging with the community, and puts very little effort at all into quality control over the people he pays. He is not himself an en:wp editor with any real experience, and simply does not understand many of the issues. One key issue is identifying OKA-paid material. There used to be a speadsheet that did this, but I don't know if this is still accessible. Most, but I think not all, the editors he pays identify themselves on their user or talk pages, but the articles they create are very often not given any sort of tag. Many of them have pretty poor English, so must use machine-translation of articles from other WPs, or I suppose now freshly-brewed AI texts. A remedy like "OKA editors using LLMs to translate must check for quality and accuracy" just won't fly with the existing set-up - the editors just won't know how to do this. I haven't noticed that the situation common in the early days persists, where an OKA editor set up a FORK for a major article evidently without checking whether en:wp already had one (normally we did, with a rather more idiomatic title). He was warned about that, & it may have stopped - the solution was just to redirect the OKA title to the existing one, so his money was wasted.Johnbod (talk)15:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To me this comment"[...] we may need to shut down OKA entirely on EN WP and re-assign our ~15 full-time translators to other Wikipedia languages [...]" shows that they are indeed using machine translation. I don't see how a translator could translate competently into English, and then just switch at the drop of a hat to translating into Finnish or Farsi instead.
I have accepted a few of these at AfC, and they seemed quite okay to me, although I admit I didn't specifically look for possible MT problems. I also feel, rightly or wrongly, like investigating the translation quality or provenance would be beyond the scope of AfC's (or for that matter, NPP's) remit. --DoubleGrazing (talk)15:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If he meant any random language, sure. But a lot of translators can do bi-directional translation, so if you're doing es→en, it might be easy to take assignments that go en→es. Many translators know multiple languages, too. (For that matter, my plumber speaks seven languages. In some parts of the world, being multilingual isn't remarkable.)WhatamIdoing (talk)23:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fluency is also a spectrum. I know enough French to watch movies and read books, which is useful when there's an annoying lack of English sources for something. But my French conversational skills are severely lacking and my writing is iffy on a grammatical level. There's a reason I don't hang out on fr.wiki even if I read their articles sometimes.Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; similar for me. And sometimes the limited fluency leads to one-way translation: I'm confident translating from French to English, but less so from English to French.Cremastra (talk·contribs)23:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A significant concern that occurred during the NEWLLM discussion wasthis edit, where an obviously llm-generated text with fabricated sources wasrestoreddetagged by 7804j. While it was later removed, I do note checking that a fabricated source added elsewhere in the article was not removed. I have removed it now, but clearly the issue extended beyond just that additional portion and I doubt anyone has actually checked the other sources to see if they were fabricated. I don't know if we need an OKA specific remedy, but hopefully OKA participants are made aware of the potential issues they might run into on en.wiki.CMD (talk)17:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the community bringing these concerns forward. I recognize that as OKA grows, our activity becomes more visible. I want to address the specific points raised and clarify how we manage quality.
Regarding OKA’s output, it is essential to look at the data in context. With over13,000 articles created globally (including 4,800 on English Wikipedia) by more than80 OKA editors, a small number of errors are statistically inevitable in any high-volume project, whether volunteer or funded. While we treat every report of a problematic edit as an opportunity to refine our internal guidance, these instances remain outliers. They do not represent the vast majority of our work, which provides a significant net benefit by filling content gaps and expanding articles. Our goal is not to "clog the process" but to continue optimizing our internal checks so that our positive impact remains high while minimizing the burden on other editors.
LLM usage and accuracy
The concerns regarding fabricated sources (hallucinations) are the most serious.
Source verification: We are reinforcing to all grant recipients that LLMs are tools for phrasing and translation, not for facts. Any editor found adding unsupported content or fabricated citations receives a formal warning.
Policy alignment: I initiated therecent discussion that led to thecurrent RFC because I want OKA to work within the community’s consensus onWP:NEWLLM. We are also finalizing a study on AI effectiveness to share with the community.
Process and vetting
Overwrites: I fully agree with the feedback here. Overwriting existing content is not ok, unless that content is poor. This is clearly reflected in our instructions. Any editor who ignores this receives a formal warning; two warnings result in the immediate suspension of their OKA grant.
English proficiency: Our process already requires editors to demonstrate their ability to produce idiomatic, high-quality English that meets WP:MOS before they are eligible for a stipend. We aren't "hiring" staff, but rather providing grants to independent contributors who meet these standards.
Transparency: Our tracker is public atoka.wiki/tracker (andon-wiki). Every article we work on is tagged as such in the talk page too. We are open to suggestions on how to make OKA-funded edits more easily identifiable (e.g., specific edit summaries) to assist reviewers.
Clarifications on specific comments
On my experience: Johnbod mentioned I am not myself "an en:wp editor with any real experience". This is not true -- I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 10 years. Like many long-term contributors, my focus has been primarily on the content side rather than policy discussions or noticeboards, so it is true I have less experience on these aspects. I am engaging here to ensure the community has the facts about our workflow.
On "switching languages": To clarify: our editors only work in languages they are fluent in. My previous comment about "re-assigning to other languages" referred to moving our funding focus to different language editions of Wikipedia, not asking individual translators to work in languages they don't know.
The "fabricated source" incident: To be clear, I did not "restore" fabricated text. I removed a maintenance tag based on a misunderstanding of whether the section was a translation or an expansion. Once it became clear the editor hadn't verified the sources properly, we took action. I'll take responsibility for the mistake in that specific review, but it was an isolated error.
Moving forward
We don't want OKA editors to be held to a "different" standard, but we recognize that as a funded organization, we have a responsibility to ensure we aren't creating extra work for the community. We believe the current model provides a substantial net gain for Wikipedia.7804j (talk)19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not I used an LLM, spell-checking tool, or the help of someone to review and provide feedback on my response is irrelevant. I would like us to focus on the substance of this discussion.
Also keep in mind that tools that "detect LLMs" look for signs such as the presence of bullet points, headers, bolding, etc. which are also best practices for communication. Structuring arguments as lists and highlighting core ideas is always how I communicate when needing to convey complex ideas to a large audience, when I can spend sufficient time to copyedit and review my response. For example, the message I am currently writing is less structured (no bullets or headers), mostly because I am writing while I am on the go, thus having less time to iterate on it.7804j (talk)08:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The tools used while editing Wikipedia are directly relevant to this discussion. They are the very topic of this discussion. Being deliberately evasive on very simple questions is not a helpful way to develop trust.CMD (talk)10:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have ended up here at AN largely because of some OKA editors' careless use of LLMs, so yes, whether the founder and main driver of the project uses LLMs to communicate with us is very relevant. And having spent months working alongside Qcne atAFC, I am confident that he understands the nuances amd pitfalls of AI detection and isn't making this accusation lightly.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)09:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I use LLMs to help me draft and structure my thoughts, especially for long responses where I want to be clear and address multiple points. I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong with using modern tools to improve the quality and readability of a discussion, provided the person posting takes full responsibility for the content.
I’m sorry if my previous response seemed evasive; that wasn’t my intent. My point was that the substance of the arguments should matter more than the software used to assist in writing them. To me, using an LLM to refine a post is a matter of personal preference and productivity, similar to using a sophisticated spell-checker or a translation tool.
Trust is a two-way street. Being questioned on the mechanics of how I write feels like a distraction from the actual policy issues we are here to solve. Many professional environments now encourage the use of these tools specifically because they can improve the clarity of communication.
The core issue here is whether OKA's output on Wikipedia is accurate and valuable. I am here to take responsibility for that output and to work on the process improvements I mentioned above. I would prefer we focus on those specific quality controls rather than the tools I use to draft my replies.7804j (talk)11:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean technically you aren’t taking responsibility for the output though; you have made it clear that all errors are the fault of your (quite low paid) employees, and that they will receive all the punishment. Nowhere in your list of changes do you discuss introducing additional training or help for translators.ExtantRotations (talk)12:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear about what I mean by responsibility. As the founder, I am responsible for the system and instructions our editors follow. If there is a pattern of errors, it means our training or oversight needs adjustment, and that is on me.
When I say editors are responsible for their output, I’m simply stating the Wikipedia rule: every person is accountable for the edits they make. However, we don't just "wait for mistakes to punish." Our responsibility is in the support we provide:
Training: We don't just hand out money; we provide onboarding and direct mentorship from experienced editors.
Systemic Fixes: When the community flags an issue—like overwriting or infobox errors—we don't just blame an individual. We update our global guidelines and hold group sessions to ensure every OKA editor understands the fix.
Quality Control: The "warning" system is a safeguard for Wikipedia. It’s there to ensure that if someone consistently fails to meet community standards despite our training, they stop receiving funding.
I am not "passing the buck." I am here to ensure that OKA as a whole is a net positive, which means I am constantly iterating on our training to prevent these issues from happening in the first place.7804j (talk)12:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just hand out money; we provide onboarding
Are the editors compensated/paid for their time during onboarding?
As a personal request; if you reply to me, can you please useonly your own words? I do not like talking to someone through a computer-generated layer, it actually feels disrespectful to me.--Gurkubondinn (talk)12:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I presume that this refers to a broader program than the initial 40 hour trial, as, regarding the latter, the job posting template states that:
Note that payment for the trial requires that you publish at least 5 articles successfully without quality issues and share your progress daily within the established trial period.
If you do refer to a longer paid onboarding, I would be happy to hear details about how it is being managed by the senior editors, and what oversight is present regarding this process. This could really help convince the editing community that your translators receive appropriate supervision and training.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the job posting refers to the payment as requiring articleswithout quality issues, which isn't the same asregardless of the outcome, which is why I believe they must be referring to different processes.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My reading ofregardless of the outcome was that they would be paid even if they did not meet thepublish at least 5 articles successfully requirement. But it's not entirely clear to me, maybe there's another process like you said. I just don't like the idea that someone could spend their time on this and not even get paid for it, because this seems a little bit exploitative to me.--Gurkubondinn (talk)16:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the confusion. The job posting does indeed say 5 articles (which is a mistake, actually it should be saying 2), but this is more a "protection" against abuse of ill-intentioned actors, not something that we really have to enforce in practice except from really egregious cases. What we want to avoid is someone signing up, not doing any work at all, and asking for money. If the person has actually tried to onboard but just didn't succeed, and there is evidence of this (e.g., conversations, drafts, etc.) then we've always paid the entirety of the 40h.7804j (talk)18:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Setting asides concerns that this comment was LLM-written or generated in some part, I don't see how holding OKA editors to basic standards ofcompetence andverifiability is holding them to a different standard. The raw volume of errors found and possibly introduced but not yet found is of great concern. We cannot, as a community, keep up with an organized and fast flow of misinformation. This is exacerbated by the pattern of avoiding communication; I was in the 1/1 thread, and it took an outright block to enforce basic communication.
Also, the general rule in translation is to translate from a foreign language into your native language, with which you are hopefully more familiar. I don't see any indication that this is the case.Iseult Δxtalk to me03:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j, I'd appreciate seeing more details about the onboarding process.
Do you have an example of a position description or call for expressions of interest from potential new translators? Where do you advertise?
How are new translators selected and what are the selection criteria?
What training is provided to new translators, especially around the different policies snd guidelines of the different language Wikipedias? Links to training materials would be especially helpful for this discussion.
When English Wikipedia editors bring up quality control issues with you, what specific steps do you take to address these with the translator? e.g. do you show them the relevant noticeboard/talk page discussion, do you identify the specific parts of the text that have problems, do you read and discuss the relevant policy together?
Is anyone other than yourself involved in the selection, training, or supervision of translators?
Translators are selected by other, more senior, translators. I do not personally get involved in the process. This happens through a mix of personal referrals, and postings on Linkedin. We have tested different platforms, and found that it was the most suitable to get a high-volume of diverse profiles without cost. One of our goals is to onboard non-Wikipedians to Wikipedia, so that we grow the total pool of editors, so we intentionally do not recruit directly within Wikipedia. Of course, this comes at the cost of more complex onboarding and more mistakes being done in the beginning, but we see it as part of the value of OKA to train people on the use of Wikipedia. You can find the post templatehere.
All our onboarding materials are published on-wiki, suchthis quick-start guide and themain instructions. We have theseadditional instructions for non-en Wikipedias. Senior editors conduct the initial resume screening, interview, and also have several video sessions with new editors to walk them through it and answer their questions. During the trial period, their contributions are reviewed in detail by more senior editors, and the degree of review decreases over time as they gain experience. We continue to monitor things such as: spot-checking of articles, AfC rejections, issue tags, mentions of translators into any Wikipedia discussions. We also organize monthly optional round-tables, and have several internal chats where editors can ask questions or share best practices.
Our core guidelines is that each OKA editor is responsible for directly interacting with the community, and responding to and resolving issues. It's hard to always be aware of every mention of an OKA translator, but whenever this happens we look into it and try to establish the root cause and solutions. This typically results in a mix of changes to our processes or guidelines, reminders to the broader group, and if the translator was at fault, a formal warning (or dismissal for very significant issues or deliberate violations). A second warning typically leads to the termination of the grant. We aim to be as specific as possible, pointing to the specific text or edit, and to the relevant Wikipedia and OKA guidelines or policies.
Most of these processes are "self-managed and decentralized" to the grant-recipients, where senior editors take on these review and management activities. We then have three volunteers (myself and two other people) overseeing the effort, doing an additional degree of spot-checking, designing and building the tools and processes, and acting as escalation layer.
Generally speaking, we try to be as transparent as possible with the community about the inner workings of OKA, and have been actively seeking suggestions for process improvements. As long as it remains within the spirit of OKA's mission, I welcome any proposed changes to our processes.7804j (talk)07:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of transparency, would you be willing to identify who else (besides you) has a supervisory or oversight role? At the moment, I am only aware of you as founder, and the lists of translators supported by OKA, which do not indicate who else is involved in supervision and quality control.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)09:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify the responsibilities of the senior translators, regarding selection, management and review of their junior colleagues. As this isn't outlined in the job posting, is there a different position/contract involving these aspects, or is it an expected part of the duties that all translators sign up for? It could be helpful to make this information available on-wiki, especially regarding who is responsible for whom. That way, we know who to ask for help if there is an issue with a newer translator, and OKA's internal review process can work jointly with Wikipedia's.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)09:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand – although please correct me if I am wrong – OKA editors are independent contractors, with a very low salary of 397 USD per month for a 40 hour week, which I believe corresponds to 2.29 USD hourly. Given this precarious status, I am worried that more uncertainty in the translator duties may lead to an overloading of responsibilities, which is worrying as independent contractors do not necessarily have the same protections as paid employees. Having more clarity regarding their exact responsibilities and the internal structure through which they work may be necessary to reassure some of us in that regards.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)10:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are three of us at the core organization level: myself, @Nickoka (based in Winterthur, Switzerland), and a software developer. Nick handles our internal operations and finances, while the developer is building an open-source stats platform to improve our tracking. Neither are active on-wiki editors, which is why I am the primary point of contact for the community.
I have updated ourlist of editors to list the three currently active OKA senior editors who assist with peer-review and onboarding.
The relationship between senior and junior editors is one of mentorship rather than a strict hierarchy. We don't have rigid "roles descriptions" for them; instead, senior editors are long-term grant recipients who have demonstrated a high level of proficiency. They are tasked with:
Onboarding new grant recipients.
Conducting peer-reviews during trial periods.
Coaching on OKA, Wikipedia and local project policies. They are given significant freedom to manage their "mentee" groups as they see fit, provided the output meets Wikipedia's quality standards.
To clarify the stipend amounts: the $397 USD figure is for the initial trial period. For regular editors, this increases up to $452 USD, and for those taking on mentoring/management roles, it ranges between $525 and $634 USD. While these amounts are modest, we ensure they are above the minimum wage in the countries where the editors reside.
Many of our recipients edit part-time or use the stipend to support their existing volunteer work. Our goal is to enable people to contribute who otherwise wouldn't have the financial flexibility to do so. We are very sensitive to the "precariousness" mentioned—which is why we don't treat this as a traditional job with "overloading responsibilities," but as a grant to support independent encyclopedic work. There are also no set working hours—people are free to work whenever they want to, and leave at any time without any notice.
I am happy to share more details on our internal workflows if it helps. However, our internal documentation includes sensitive payment details, so I need to be careful about where it is shared. I'm open to providing any additional details that the community feels that would help bridge the trust gap.7804j (talk)12:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804jWhile these amounts are modest, we ensure they are above the minimum wage in the countries where the editors reside.
I have changed my mind. This is disgustingly exploitative. You're a Swiss-based non-profit exploiting residents of the global south to add AI slop to the project and expecting volunteers to clean this up. Take a long, critical, look at yourself and your operations.
While I don't know in which canton of Switzerland you are based, the lowest minimum wage (in Ticino) is 19.5 CHF, or 24.7 USD. In comparison, the minimum hourly wage for your freelancers is 2.29 USD.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)16:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find the characterization of our work as "AI slop" and the personal attacks regarding "exploitation" to be both disrespectful and inaccurate. I ask that we remain focused on the substance of Wikipedia policy.
Regarding the stipend levels: OKA is a non-profit providing grants, not a corporation hiring employees. We provide financial support to editors in regions where the cost of living is lower, specifically so they have the freedom to contribute to Wikipedia full-time—something that would otherwise be impossible for them. Comparing Swiss minimum wages to the local economies of our editors is not a helpful metric for a global project. Our goal is to empower contributors from the Global South and under-represented communities by removing the financial barriers to their participation.
Whether a stipend is "reasonable" is a subjective labor discussion that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. The community’s role here is to evaluate theedits, not our internal financial structure.
As for the content, labeling thousands of reviewed translations as "slop" ignores the thousands of hours of human work and the value these articles provide to readers.
I am happy to discuss quality controls, but I will not engage further with personal attacks or hyperbole about our mission.7804j (talk)17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
99% chance AI Generated. We are highly confident this text was AI generated
It is disrespectful to continue to talk to us via a chatbot, despite already being asked not to. This is now disruptive. I would hat and hide your comment if I was not involved.qcne(talk)17:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have been open about using tools to help structure my thoughts and ensure my responses are clear and professional. There is no policy that mandates a specific drafting style, and I find it counterproductive to derail a serious discussion about OKA's operations into a debate over my personal writing process.7804j (talk)18:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your own use of LLMs, as the founder of the nonprofit in question, to communicate with editors here on Wikipedia, which your nonprofit relies on, is absolutely relevant.--Gurkubondinn (talk)18:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your website indicates that your translators bill you for their time worked; is that because having them act as independent contractors is less legally regulated than if you just granted them the money? I mean, you keep calling them grants anyways…ExtantRotations (talk)18:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mix of reasons, but the primary one is process simplicity. We don't need to actively keep track of who's working and who's not working: we wait for the editors to send us the list of what they've worked on, we review it, and pay. Given that we're running this as only 3 volunteers, it's important to keep processes as lean as possible for the volunteers. But this also means when an editor decides to no longer work with OKA, or if they want to reduce their activity rate or not work for a few weeks, they don't even need to let us know, they can just stop submitting their "bills".7804j (talk)18:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies but you are the one who created a nonprofit that is financially dependent on Wikipedia. I think it is extremely prudent to ask things like how much the charity raises per year or how much you earn in comparison to your employees. I don’t know about Switzerland but in Canada this info is publicly available for nonprofits.ExtantRotations (talk)17:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According tothis article from 2025 -- the organization linked to the news article so I assume this is ok to post -- half the budget (80,000 Swiss francs) is from the founder's personal income and half is from "donations and fundraising." 10,000 Swiss francs last year came from aWikimedia grant to evaluate AI-assisted translations on the encyclopedia (something all of us are currently doing for free, by the way). I don't know whether that 10,000 is part of the "donations and fundraising" or separate.Gnomingstuff (talk)18:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To maximize the impact of our limited funds, we primarily award grants to translators based in countries with low costs of living. These countries also tend to be underrepresented among Wikipedia editors, which also helps us decrease Wikipedia’s systematic bias.ExtantRotations (talk)17:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j: I'd really appreciate a response to this question because as it stands, it looks as if you initiated this translation project without considering the wishes of the broader community or asking for feedback beforehand.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)21:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As Qcne wrote in the timeline, no, I did not inform the communitybefore starting the project, but many discussions took place shortly after, and at that point I took many steps to act on the community's feedback and be even more transparent and proactively communicating (e.g., formally associating OKA toWikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki). Since then, the community has been overall supportive of our OKA, with the exception of isolated incidents (and this discussion so far, which I believe does not reflect the community's balanced opinion but rather the opinion of a self-selected subset of the community).
Why did I not inform the communitybefore the project? Simply because at the time, I didn't realize it was expected, as I had very little experience with such types of projects, or even with interacting with the Wikipedia community in general (I was just a regular editor). Also, at the time I wasn't even sure I would be able to make it work, and the concept was still veryexperimental, thus not having very clear boundaries like it has today7804j (talk)07:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an on-wiki discussion where you proposed the translation [..]before [..]? — User:ClaudineChionh
Thank you for your response yesterday (which was a long day at work for me). For what it's worth, I disagree with your interpretation that this discussion is not representative of the community's overall sentiments towards your initiative.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)22:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion involves a dozen of editors that saw it through the admin noticeboard. Over the past few years, hundreds of people have been exposed to OKA's work, and I have personally received many messages of encouragement from a variety of editors and admins. Many editors have also thanked our editors directly for their contributions through barnstars, words of appreciation, etc. Several of our editors are active in Wikipedia projects, some participate in local Wikimedia chapter events, etc. So I don't know what's the overall community's view, but I know for sure that this thread doesn't represent it well7804j (talk)06:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous OKA did not come up with outsourcing and the fact that labor has different cost in different places. We live in the real world. WP has a massive lack of representation from the global south. Many in the global south do not have the luxury to spend their unpaid time on the internet. OKA is not forcing them to edit wikipedia. Some of these editors may well see this as a great opportunity for them to contribute to a project. It may be a much better opportunity for making money than other available to them. If they want to argue OKA is doing unfair labor practices then let's hear them say it, but it not for you to decide for them.Czarking0 (talk)04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Firmly agree. There are numerous issues here - practical issues, labor issues, and community interaction issues - of which the most significant is that users are being told to add translations that they are not able to check for errors and copyedit. 7804j's responses here have made it clear they cleared this nonprofit without considering what the community would want, and have no intention of addressing the numerous major concerns. This effort needs to be shut down, and not allowed to simply skip over to harming a different project. I would prefer if someone else can formally propose the prohibition - I don't have any experience in doing so - but I will be it myself if need be.Pi.1415926535 (talk)21:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more, the responses here by 7804j are concerning, almost all are AI generated and they seem to not respect the community's wishes at all.–LuniZunie(talk)23:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. We don't know what community wishes are, except in the broad context of building an encyclopedia, and 7804j and his project have been certainly doing just that. As for the use of AI to streamline replies, there's a difference between having an AI reply, and having an AI rewrite/copyedit one's thoughts, and my understanding is that they've been doing the latter, not the former. While we are seeing a norm clash, with some folks considering the latter lazy, I think it's a sign of things to come, and overall an improvement, given low quality of online discourse; in either way, while I also support banning "using AI to talk", I have no problem with "using AI to help one refine one's response", and perWP:AGF I see no reason to believe this is not the case here. Lastly, I am also open to the consideration that AI may help some folks suffering from forms of disability (dyslexia, etc.) and I find criticism of folks that may benefit from such tool unwarranted and arguably, distasteful. Would you criticize a blind person for using a gadget to edit Wikipedia? In the end, it doesn't matter what tool one uses to write a response and communicate, as long as we are still talking to them (and not a bot). Ban the bots, let real people do what they want - it's not our place to force our thoughts on which tools they should be using.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I absolutely agree with your point on the disabilities as I have dysgraphia and dyslexia, and I do use AI to help with spelling and reading (because I can't read for the life of me). However, what I am trying to say is, if an issue is brough up with you, and you use a bot to respond, that's a problem; you aren't responding or acknowledging the issue at all by doing that.As per the community's wishes, that is true that we only know the broad context, but what I meant by that is that the responses here, and the subsequent responses by 7804j, are showing there is a pretty large mismatch in what is wanted. In a perfect world, we would tell 7804j that everything needs to be properly checked, but this isn't a perfect world and that just won't happen and I am not given confidence by the responses here to prove otherwise.I of course, agree that minimal AI usage should be fine, I mean, it's the future whether we like it or not, and failing to adapt to the times will be this project's demise. But I just don't think this is the way to do it.–LuniZunie(talk)12:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have read chunks of the discussion here, maybe I missed something. It's clear some OKA translators got lazy and used AI without double checking for common errors. I expect OKA (=7804j) to introduce safeguards to prevent this from happening, and discipline repeated offenders (because as everyone knows, if we have to do it here, it won't be pretty). I expect OKA will agree - it's not their first rodeo, and in the past, AFAIK, they have been ammenable to improve their standards and ensure the content they deliver is acceptable.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to what gives the impression that OKA isn't willing to adapt. As Piotr mentioned, we are more than happy to make any changes to our processes that the community finds beneficial.
Also, as Piotr mentioned, I only used AI to organize my thoughts, I did not use AI to generate messages from scratch. It is therefore fully within the community's own guidelines. Also I have been extremely detailed and transparent in my responses.
LuniZuni, is there a concrete ask that you feel OKA should commit to but where you feel there is a fundamental mismatch between what you would want, and I would be willing to agree to?7804j (talk)13:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LuniZuni is my doppelgänger :pis there a concrete ask that you feel OKA should commit to but where you feel there is a fundamental mismatch between what you would want, and I would be willing to agree to? I'm not asking about what I want, what I want is a website where AI is allowed in moderation, but not in content generation. What I am asking is that these things be communicated onwiki before they occur, not in discussions that take place after the fact, they should be done before. This is a major thing being done by your non-profit, that needs to involve the community. Right now, it seems like the community is involved, but only after the fact, which is not very helpful.–LuniZunie(talk)13:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I (and others) complain elsewhere about how WMF does stuff without consulting community. Of course, we seem to be unable to change WMF behemoth; here, we have much more leverage, but I also think - again, based on past experience - we are much more likely to see OKA change what they do than WMF, sigh.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WMF comparison is very salient here. OKA clearly has money and wants to support the project. Their vision is not 100% aligned with all the community members. Neither is WMF's. However the community may be able to play OKA and WMF off against each other for our own gain. Though I doubt we have the skill to do it.Czarking0 (talk)04:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the accusation of exploitation made here; this is serious and I worry it was not fully considered in the heat of the moment. 7804j has said OKA work is not meant to be full-time, but fine, let's say people do it full-time anyways. 7804j says workers are paid more than minimum wage, but that doesn't mean much; even in Switzerland, most of the country has no minimum wage, so he could be paying oneRappen an hour and that would still be true. But he has given us numbers here that we can check against the statistics. Let's look at two countries in the global south with vast numbers of native English speakers: Nigeria and India. The World Bank says average annual income in Nigeria was 1663 USD in 2021[11], which comes out to 139 USD per month. For India it gives 1907 USD per year, or $159 per month. The same list gives $115 monthly for Senegal, a (somewhat) Francophone country, and $427 monthly for Colombia, a Spanish-speaking country. (Many OKA articles are translated from Spanish or French. These are the first countries that came to mind for each language – if I were to cherry-pick the data, I could list, say, Chad and Bolivia instead.) For comparison, the minimum OKA stipend listed above was $397. Now, I don't know if the World Bank data truly represent a living wage in those countries, something that is very difficult to measure, and I don't know where OKA editors are (maybe they're in countries with far higher cost-of-living?). But this is a reasonable estimate, and it would seem to contradict the accusations of exploitation made above.Toadspike[Talk]04:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into this, I was also rather shocked by the language used. No good deed, you know. Here, someone is paying out of their own pocket (or at least partially, and in either case not counting time spend managing this) to get volunteers (nobody is forcing anyone to do anything) to contribute to Wikipedia - and he is being accused of exploitation. I am at a loss of words, really, because I don't think anything I could say would be particularly nice. Sigh.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j: This sub-thread got somewhat derailed. I want to return to the issue of OKA's labour force. Set aside dollar/euro/franc amounts for a moment. To state my bias upfront, as an Asian immigrant to Australia I am very sensitive to "representation" being used as a fig leaf for exploiting workers in the global south, and "independent contractor" arrangements used to absolve your responsibility to your workers. Because that's what they are,your workers, and treating their half- or full-time employment as gig work is abhorrent to me. You have imposed a mass article creation program on the English Wikipedia without prior community discussion, which means the existence of this program and your workers' livelihoods is dependent on the community's goodwill. A noticeable number of your workers were given inadequate training or oversight which meant that they came to the community's attention as "problem" editors, though it's now becoming clearer to me that these problems are due to systemic issues within OKA itself. You are squandering any remaining goodwill with your evasive answers here. Likeqcne I have become disgusted with this whole situation, but am also sensitive to the needs of the OKA workers who presumably have no form of protection from the consequences of their boss's behaviour.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)04:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I look at it from exactly the other side. The boss is trying to help, both the workers and the community, and should not be held responsible for the fact that some of his workers are lazy and cut corners. The boss is volunteering and using their own money, not making a dime of profit. The workers are the ones who are making profit - and nobody is forcing them, they are free to choose other gigs. I can't understand how come we are criticizing a volunteer who invested immense amount of time, and their own financial resources, to help our community, instead of the paid editors, some of whom are obviously abusing the system.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who else's problembut the boss' can it be if the translators are not adequately trained and their work is not adequately reviewed? It's massively irresponsible to sic a cadre of unsupervised 'translators' on Wikipedia with the specific instruction to use general-purpose LLMs to translate massive swathes of text and not implement any kind of oversight or verification. OKA can't then wash their hands of that and say "well, some people are just lazy and don't review their work". Of course they are, that's why you have to plan for that in your operational model! For instance, they could have one or two more highly paid staff whose sole job is to internally review the translations made by the 'grunt' translators before they go live. Or they could at least implement some kind of peer-check system between the translators themselves. Either way, if you just leave them to their devices,obviously you're going to end up with one or two of them just shovelling slop into the encyclopedia with no second thought.Athanelar (talk)10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with your assessment of OKA, which I think is quite responsible, I do think there is merit in the idea that they should hire some folks to do quality check, even if this would reduce the total output due to reducing the translator's total number a bit. It would, hopefully, prevent the issues we are seeing (as marginal as they are, IMHO). @7804j - this idea is worth considering seriously.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having peer reviewers could make sense, and I've started to think about it in the last couple of days. However, it's not easy to put in place operationally and there are several different options to consider, so it will require some further thinking and fleshing out.
What I can do is draft a process and start a pilot internally with a few editors and focused on EN WP. If this works well, we can then scale it to the rest of OKA and other Wikipedias. This might take a bit of time, though I expect we can already get some results and feedback within a few weeks.
-----
As a side note, I really dislike the "boss" analogy. Would we require that every Wikipedia editor has a boss and an assigned reviewer? The whole point of OKA is to provide grants so that people can become regular editors. The more process we put on them, the more they lose the freedom that makes Wikipedia great in the first place.
OKA doesn't strictlyrequire that grant recipients translate using LLMs, nor that they translate in fact. These are mere recommendations based on what we have found to be an easy way for people with dual language proficiency to have significant impact on Wikipedia. We do actually encourage editors to explore any other tools or types of Wikipedia contributions, but relatively few do, simply because they agree that LLM translations are a good way to have positive impact.
One of OKA's goal is actually to bring new editors to Wikipedia, which is why we don't advertiseon Wikipedia. If someone promotes Wikipedia at their university or workplace, and as a result some mix of editors start editing, some being good and some being less so, is the editor who promoted Wikipedia in the first place going to be held accountable for having promoted it to the wrong people?
That being said, I acknowledge that due to the scale and organized nature of OKA, additional safeguards are useful, even if they restrict a little bit the freedom of OKA editors, hence my willingness to try the peer reviewer approach.7804j (talk)14:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your goal is understandable and admirable, but you of course have to be aware that paying people for their contributions is going to change the way they contribute. Similarly, of course someone who tells their friends "hey, editing Wikipedia is fun, you should try it" isn't liable for what those people do, but that's not what you're doing. You're specifically selecting, enrolling and supporting paid editors. Youare responsible for the people on your payroll, there's no getting around that, because the mere fact that you are paying them is an explicit endorsement of their editing activities.
The "one or two bad apples" argument only works if you're making an active effort to catch the bad apples. It's very good that you take action when it's reported to you, but it's concerning that somebody is able to go on for so long without it ever being caught internally. Youneed to have some kind of internal review process, otherwise you can't be surprised when people blame you for the actions of people you're literally paying to edit.Athanelar (talk)14:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this perspective. If a university gives a full scholarship to a student (tuition and costs of living), it doesn't automatically become liable to all the activities and publications of that student, even if the university encourages its students to write and publish. E.g., if the student publishes a flawed and questionable paper on their own blog, the university may decide to cancel the scholarship, but shouldn't be held liable for having granted that scholarship in the first place.7804j (talk)16:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if one of the students accepted for said scholarship demonstrated that they lacked the qualifications one would expect for a recipient of that scholarship, it would raise questions as to how thoroughly the university is vetting its applicants.Athanelar (talk)16:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this as well. I know many universities or systems where scholarships are funded without particular vetting of the applicant's competence, other than on the basis of a CV.
In either case, nobody would say that such universities arethe boss of the scholarship recipients, even if such scholarships are tied to certain outcomes (e.g., successfully meeting course criteria). This is the model we're trying to replicate with OKA7804j (talk)19:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j, a brief comment on the "boss" wording: I didn't use it in relation to the editing workflow, but to draw out the economic and power dynamics in OKA's structure, regardless of whatever legal or taxation arrangement is used. @Athanelar has picked up on that aspect withpaying people for their contributions is going to change the way they contribute. On reflection I think my critique of your gig work arrangement is a tangent from this specific discussion of quality control, but I am still extremely concerned (indeed, still disgusted) by this arrangement and may seek a better venue to continue that discussion.ClaudineChionh(she/her ·talk ·email ·global)00:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for barging in, I'm mostly a lurker, but readingthat amount of money the organization offers as "payment" is decently less than minimum wage in about half of latam, this is straight up exploitation.
Adding my two cents, OKA should straight up be banned from wiki; AIslop without signs of actually wanting to improve the jank it spits out, and, exploitation of people in need, worse of all, a Swiss non-profit, straight up a neo-colonialist scheme.
And comments like above make me angry (so what?). Misrepresenting things (there's plenty of evidence OKA is trying to improve), and calling online gig that nobody is forcing anyone to take "exploitation", sigh. You think OKA is offering too little? Offer more, yourself. They are at least trying.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Grok angle: that is the worst LLM one could possibly be using from an "oh this will bebad bad if it gets out" perspective, given that the three things the average person associates Grok with nowadays are Elon Musk, revenge porn, and Grokipedia.
I don't buy the "Grok knows wikitext" angle, all modern LLMs have a rudimentary-enough knowledge of wikitext to match the rudimentary level of the translations.Gnomingstuff (talk)17:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have actually just published theresults of a study we have done on LLM quality for Wikipedia translation. Based on these results, we have proceeded to switch over from Grok to Claude and ChatGPT as the recommended tools, but there are certain use cases where Grok still performs better.
We had done a similar (though a lot less detailed) analysis in the past, and so far Grok was always outperforming the other models for this specific task. So we haven't picked Grok because we like Elon Musk or Grokipedia (in fact, I don't), but just based on data.7804j (talk)19:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AndCSAM generator. The level of doublethink needed to convince oneself of acting for the public good while wanting to be anywhere near that is breathtaking. —Hex•talk13:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find this response and the one above extremely concerning. Are you suggesting that because Grok is a very controversial tool that sometimes produces very problematic results when prompted to do so, that even theidea that I would want totest the effectiveness of Grok as atranslation tool is a proof that we have poor judgement or poor intents?
Keep in mind that translation is a verymechanical task. Grok isn't going to suddenly add Hitler references or generate child porn when asked to translate a sentence about the History of France... I'm really not a fan of Elon Musk, but come on, there's really no need for extra sensationalism here...7804j (talk)13:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that because Grok is a very controversial tool that sometimes produces very problematic results when prompted to do so, that even the idea that I would want to test the effectiveness of Grok as a translation tool is a proof that we have poor judgement or poor intents? yes.qcne(talk)13:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. 25 years ago I could have said the internet is a disgusting tool for sharing CSAM and you want to test using it to distribute an encyclopedia!?Czarking0 (talk)04:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that translation is a very mechanical task.
I believe that this shows a rather poor understanding of what goes into localisation and translation (and the unwarranted editorialising that LLMs perform whenever they're asked tomerely translate something).--Gurkubondinn (talk)08:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying it is "mechanical" in absolute terms, but compared to other prompts you might give an LLM like "Tell me what you think of Nazis"7804j (talk)11:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Never said Grok was CSAM, I said it generated it, my entire argument was how it generated it. If an AI doesn't have enough checks and has training data that allows it to generated CSAM, yeah, I don't trust it.–LuniZunie(talk)15:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I am incredibly confused by this. Are you arguing you would rather the AI generate CSAM a few times than be censored enough to not generate porn? Or are you arguing something else?–LuniZunie(talk)15:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, due to insufficient safeguards, I think most LLM models have been known to generate CSAM in the past. By that logic, all of them are not worth trusting. Now, when we consider CSAM has been created long before AIs, by the beings known as humans, why would we trust anything humans made?Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything that says other AIs generate CSAM, and if they do, then yeah I would not trust that AI.And the argument Now, when we consider CSAM has been created long before AIs, by the beings known as humans, why would we trust anything humans made? is ridiculous, most humans don't consume, generate, or eventhink about CSAM, why would you discard everything made by most humans? You can't claim all humans are something just because a few are that.–LuniZunie(talk)15:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fond of views in which humans are automatically, permanently irredeemable if they do something, so let's talk about your black-and-white worldview for a moment. About one in 15 underage males admits to having created and distributed naked sexual photos of themselves.[12]That's officially considered CSAM material in most of the world, even when it's fully consensual. Shall we kick out one in 15 males out of society for the rest of their lives, because they engaged in illegalsexting? We get about three-quarters of a million registered editors here each year. It's mostly males. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that something on the order of 5,000(!) of the Wikipedia editors who made any edit during the last year has also sexted at least one naked photo to at least one romantic partner before the age of 18. So I ask you your own question: Now that you know that thousands of Wikipedia editors technically created and distributed CSAM material, would you still work with them?WhatamIdoing (talk)00:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think that the point the above users are trying to make is not that Grok is likely to do any of these things while translating Wikipedia articles, but rather, that using a model that is particularly notorious for its poor oversight was a lapse in judgement. While use of Grok in this context is not necessarily an endorsement of its creator or its controversies, even in the absence of your explicit dis-endorsement above, it's not unreasonable that people aware of the many controversies of Grok would be concerned about its use in this context. It's obvious that using Grok for translation purposes is not likely to produce questionable or illegal image content, or that OKA editors would be foolish enough to put such content on Wikipedia, however,Grok's biases are well documented, and its tendency togas up or disparage particular concepts and individuals based on the politically-motivated instructions provided by its creators is relevant in the context of translating encyclopedic text. If paired with poor oversight, it's reasonable to be concerned that text that isunencyclopedic or outrightbiased may be more likely to slip through when using Grok as opposed to other models with less toxic reputations. It's good to know that you've switched over to primarily relying on Claude and ChatGPT (despite having their own problems, I think most users would consider them far less likely to produce biased outputs), but I hope you can understand why so many users are concerned and consider the use of Grok to have been a poor decision, even though I'm sure it was done with good intentions.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)02:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I have definitely taken these concerns into account. However my own extensive experience of using Grok was that it's only showing these biases or issues when either (a) prompted to do so, (b) on extremely rare occasions (that I never personally observed other than news report) where prompted about specific topics that are very close to Elon Musk. As you mentioned, for translations that would never happen due to the mechanical nature of the task.
So I am not surprised that some people in this thread wouldthink that it's a sign of poor judgement, but the reality is that it isn't. It was carefully considered, and at the time, Grok indeed had a much better performance than other models, so the pros significantly outweighed the cons back then. Fortunately we can now switch to models that don't have this reputation since the data proves they now also perform better7804j (talk)06:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my argument was one of optics. After Grokipedia, after the massive controversy just recently, the already bad headline "An organization is paying people to flood Wikipedia with AI content" becomes the even worse "An organization is paying people to flood Wikipedia with Grok content." It's just an unforced PR error.Gnomingstuff (talk)02:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what about unreported problems? No one's gone and systematically checked all of them; the above dataset seems to mostly look for spelling error-type issues, whereas the issues AI Cleanup has found are far deeper. Most ofeverything the project has found, really, was undetected for months or years.Gnomingstuff (talk)08:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If they are unreported, we cannot even be sure they are real. Maybe there are no problems to find. All that we have is a proverbial storm in a teacup - one OKA translator was lazy and did not check the AI output. "Big deal". IF there were more translators like that - I haven't seen the diffs or usernames.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, given we had over 50 translators that each published dozens or hundreds of articles, I am quite sure we will find more examples if we really look for them. The question for me isn't "do problems happen", but "how often do these problems happen, do we believe we can mitigate them, and if not are they so large that they offset all the great outcomes where no problems were found"7804j (talk)11:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To answer the first and third questions, we need data I am not sure we can easily get (and without the data, it's all pretty much subjective ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, sigh). To answer the second - well, that's something you can do (and perhaps have done already here?).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the second point is something that we've tried to do as much as we could, but where we're fully open to any suggestions for doing things differently7804j (talk)11:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen in the past, OKA delivers good quality content, although as with any large project, it will occasionally fail and produce a dud. I was not aware OKA has adapted LLM, but it makes sense - these are popular and efficient tools (and, of course, imprefect). The only realistic suggestion I've is that all OKA content output should be checked with tools like ChatZero, and that the translators are required to ensure that LLMs didn't add hallucinations, or lazily skipped over content. Other than that - good job, kudos to volunteers engaged in it, and move on. (And, sigh, it amazes me how much complains and scorn is heaped upon volunteers who go an extra mile and try to something ambitious). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here05:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j, I'm not an admin but I've got a few questions:
I'm wondering how general editors would know to approach you if there were any concerns over an editor? The user-page disclaimers go to your website, but the Contact page of your website seems to be down and there's no indication of who we should contact on Wikipedia. Are you expecting general editors to report them using our normal escalation process then admins have to contact you in turn?
Do you perform regular quality checks (e.g. checking Talk pages for warnings) to ensure that quality is maintained, considering they're being paid? From what I've read above, it looks like they're only checked during probation then left to continue on their own (with self-reporting) but I may well have missed something.
What happens if an editor has passed probation but their work falls below the expected standard? Has this happened yet?
I'm also wondering how you accommodate for different projects having different guidelines/policies (e.gWikipedia:Notability), considering you're essentially transplanting articles from one Wikipedia into a completely different one. I see there's a preset list of articles, but you also advise editors that they're free to create their own.
The OKA.wiki contact page is a redirect tomailto:info@oka.wiki so it seems to work for me. Regarding how to contact us: every OKA editor has a link in their talk page to ourmeta Wiki profile. There, people can find the username of senior editors and of myself, the website of OKA, and other information. People have used various channels to contact us, including tagging me, writing in my talk page, writing in one of the OKA's talk pages (which are monitored), or emailing us, etc. We don't have a particular preference or expectation on how people reach us -- we expect that most issues get resolved directly by communicating with each editor, and that if people want to escalate an issue, they get in touch with me or with OKA through one of these channels. If you feel this could help, we could for example try to make it more prominent on the Meta page what's the process to escalate issues?
Yes -- we have a script that lists all the maintenance tags of all pages ever created by an OKA editor (based on the OKA template added in the talk page). The senior editors regularly go through the list to ensure these issues are resolved, so even if a page gets tagged after 1-2 year, we still go back to it to fix the issues.
Yes this has happened, including for several of the issues listed in this thread. This was discussed in some of the above comments, but we then try to look into what happened, identify if these were process issues or individual issues, and if it's something that can be "resolved" or a fundamental skill or attitude problem with the editor. Typically, if this is the first time, it leads to a formal warning, but has led on several occasions to a suspension of the grant to the editor when the issue occurred again. In such cases, we then task the senior editors to review all the work of that editor to see if some "clean up" is required to fix any potential issues introduced
Generally we tell people to follow the English Wikipedia as minimum standard, even when translating to other Wikipedias. But we do have some language-specific guidelines as well to complement these. Editors are indeed free to create their own articles, but in my experience this almost never happened, because people prefer to translate, which feels safer or more familiar for most as it's their profession.
@7804j Sorry to ask yet another question, but is there a list somewhere of the targeted donations, and/or of which articles fall under them? I couldn't find it, although I believe it probably must be available somewhere. It could be reassuring to make it prominently visible so admins don't worry about issues ofpaid editing disclosure.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)23:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Currently not, because so far we haven't received any targeted donations. This statement on OKA's website is more about keeping that option open for the future. If we ever do, yes, I would list them publicly somewhere, with the details of the rules/requirements and affected articles (note that the affected articles could be vaguely defined, e.g., "Any article that is related to Switzerland" if the donation was from the Swiss government).7804j (talk)07:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - I'm on mobile so perhaps something went wrong there? It would be nice to have a link to the meta page on the disclaimer, I'd find that really helpful for those who aren't familiar with the project & want to find out more on-wiki.Blue Sonnet (talk)07:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we've gotten a little sidetracked above with discourse about specific LLMs and LLMCOMM. My concerns, as expressedearlier, remain unaddressed. The last three discussions originally linked byqcne are troubling. The fact that obvious indicators of synthesis (at best) or hallucination are in translations is unacceptable and has always been so on this project. Less obvious/more insidious errors require more-or-less fully bilingual editors to identify and redress. That more errors haven't been found in the array of huge edits ([13]) made as a pattern from OKA-affiliated editors is almost certainly a question of volunteer scale and capability. AINB is already dealing with a lot. I do not want this community to be in a position where ten unpaid volunteers will have to verify the output of thirty paid editors while hamstrung.Iseult Δxtalk to me08:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. Until someone finds more errors, it's pretty much fearmongering/ABF, particularly given the tremendous positive contributions made by OKA (hundreds of translated articles, if not thousands, with only a fraction ever being a problem). We should focus on real, not imagined, problems.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. You've made your position abundantly clear in many comments above: AI translations good, no sanctions needed, close this thread. What this amounts to is throwing the burden of verifying the translation on other people and dismissing their concerns. You and 7804 have still not addressed the concerns and diffs originally raised in this thread. You have not provided proof that the translations and expansions are actually good.
I spent an hour trying to verify four sourceshere a few weeks ago. It turns out that AI has a really high rate of making things up. I assumed good faith, just as I am here, and got burned. Why don't you go verify everything inthis edit, for example? Or, if some error crops up in an OKA editor's contributions, will the blame be attributed solely to that editor and not systemically? It turns out that verification isn't easy!
Why is it that I have never seen an AI proponent involved with AINB or patrolling NPP for AI spam? That would involve work, and the point of AI is to offload work and not care about the results.Cremastra (talk·contribs)18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am an AI proponent that patrols NPP and AfC. Though last month I quit the NPP backlog drive over insufficient use of bots in the queue maintenance. The answer to your question is you have confirmation bias and you do not look to disprove yourself.Czarking0 (talk)04:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that, after previous issues were brought up, I decided to check the (at the time) latest OKA draft by that same editor, and foundthat the very first source I could verify was hallucinated. Of course, every find can be dismissed as "only a fraction" given the amount of text OKA publishes, but when this is the case for every translation that gets closely reviewed, statistically, this doesn't bode well.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)21:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I don't think we're going to get anywhere particularly helpful out of the forgoing discussion. I would like to remind everyone that we have two core ideals to inform ourselves of what to do here, namelyWP:V and "anyone can edit". That is, we care very deeply about whether things are verifiable, but we also care very deeply about how this is an encyclopedia written by amateurs working together; that is, mistakes are part of the process, and we can expect new editors in particular to make a lot of them. I agree that OKA probably has something like "the WikiEdu problem", namely that people mostly only notice when it's goingwrong, not when things are working, which happens far more often. And it also seems to me that OKA editors are being treated as a monolith, so we end up with "OKA screwed up again" not "editor x screwed up again". Neither of these are fair. But the problems are real. So let's set some rules for OKA translators:
everything an OKA translator adds to en-wiki must beverified by the translator; that is, if they haven't checked the information against the provided source, it should not be added.
OKA translators who have received, within six months, four (correctly applied) warnings about content that fails verification will be blockedwithout further warning if another example is found.(clarification addedasilvering (talk)04:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]
content added by an OKA translator who is subsequently blocked for failing verification may be presumptively deleted asWP:V failures unless an editor in good standing is willing to take responsibility for it.
effective henceforth; that is, no blocks/pdels for content written before this proposal passes (if it does).
The "within six months" clause is there to prevent a scenario whereby a new OKA editor messes up three times and has the sword of Damocles hanging over their head for the rest of their wiki-career. The intent is not to prevent action being taken against an editor who is messing up at high speed and high volume - we'd just have to do that the usual way, at ANI. --asilvering (talk)20:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that would require a different kind of discussion, as you note.the moral issue with using LLMs on Wikipedia is not something we are going to reach consensus about in time to usefully deal with the issues raised here about unverifiable content being added to Wikipedia, possibly at scale, by a team of editors. And we can solve that one the way we've always solved it - with blocks - and authorize presumptive deletions to make that less of a burden. --asilvering (talk)21:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a really useful proposal. I do think rule 1 might be slightly too harsh; this effectively blocks translation of any content referenced to offline sources. It seems to me that there are two qualities I want from OKA translator content: (a) translated content is cited to the same source as is used in the source articleor a new source verified by the editor, (b) if cited to an offline source, the cited source "seems reasonable" (e.g. sufficient bibliographic metadata to find the source in principle, title seems related, etc.). But I think your proposal has the significant advantages of concision and clarity. Cheers,Suriname0 (talk)21:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Suriname0, it is my position that, since there are significant concerns about hallucinations and AI use with the OKA translators as a group, we've lost the ability to assume accuracy when it comes to offline sources. I wouldn't say it effectively blocks translation - someone with access to the offline source via a library,WP:LIB,WP:RX, or other methods could still translate those parts. And these days that does include quite a lot of sources that have previously been "offline only". --asilvering (talk)21:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true! I was counting WP:LIB +shadow libraries as functionally online these days, but especially with resource requests it's probably quite reasonable. It would probably be straightforward to generate a resource request for offline sources before translation begins on an article: "I want to translate the French articlefr:So-and-So, which refers to Some Encyclopédie, pages 54 & 65, and I'd like to verify the content before I include it on English Wikipedia, thanks!".Suriname0 (talk)22:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree except rule 1 needs tweaking. The point is to control for AI hallucinations, not to add extra burden on translators, one that evenWP:AFC does not. Let me quote fromWP:AFCSTANDARDS: "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material about living persons." It does not make sense to require translators in general, or even OKA in particular, to be required to meet higher standards than what we expect from an average new editor. In other words, we accept, through AfC, articles that are undeerreferenced (which I am not very happy about, but that's how the rules are written). Now, AfC rules don't seem to be updated to AI era, and we are indeed dealing with a different issue here - lazy translators not checking for AI hallucinations. So yes, OKA translators (and translators in general) need to check for them, and if they fail to do so, blocks are in order (just like for any editor who adds AI hallucinations to Wikiepdia). But no, requirement to checkall sources, which effectively means checking even offline publications, is way above and beyond what is required from anyone outside FA and some GA level content. It would be an extremely unfair burden, and one that could be gamed easily by using AfC system, meeting their minimum standards, and just stripping article from most references - hardly an outcome we want. PS. Yes, I think we should tighten AFCSTANDARDS, but that's a different discussion.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But no, requirement to check all sources, which effectively means checking even offline publications, is way above and beyond what is required from anyone outside FA and some GA level content. Would a compromise such as that proposed bySuriname0 above be acceptable? My worry is, for example, if an AI model adds spurious citations to offline sources (which it couldn't have accessed). Requiring to check sources for citations that you add (that weren't there in the original) should presumably be a baseline.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)04:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a good best practice, but it is not something we can reasonably require, and again, it would be more than we require from AfCs (or from a regular translator). What we need is a requirement to check for AI hallucinations - that I fully support. But any requirement that a translator should verify content from another Wikipedia is beyond what we have ever required, and it would make translating much more burdensome than writing an article from scratch.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Checking sources that you add yourself (whether directly or through an AI model) that weren't in the original text is absolutely something we can reasonably require. When you publish an edit, you take responsibility for the content you add.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)04:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby I agree with that, as long as "sources you add yourself" does not involve copying within Wikipedia (including cross project). We do haveWP:AGF and when few weeks ago I for example split theList of lost literary works from the mainlost literary work I can assure you I did not check a single source, nor do I feel I should've had; nor did I check the refs in theList of Fading Suns books I likewise split a few days ago. Such splits, just like translations, are, IMHO, mechanical actions, not proper content creation that requires the creator to take responsibility for what's in the text body (as long as they do their work correctly - and being lazy and adding AI hallucinations is certainly not something we should condone, that's below acceptable levels of quality, as it makes new content worse, whereas proper translation or split should produce content that's identical to what already has been accepted by the community, and thus falls within AGF).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, we're talking about editors who have repeatedly come to the attention of patrollers for creating articles that contain hallucinations. It is time to add "extra burden" to these translators. We are not talking about AFC broadly or translation broadly, but this specific subset of editors. --asilvering (talk)04:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Fair. What we need is a list of problematic editors, an understanding of the percentage they make of OKA editors, how that percentage compares to equivalent projects in good and bad standing (i.e. what percentage is a red line?), and then we can figure out what extra burden to add to them (and to be clear, I fully support a requirement for any and all translators - not just OKA ones - to check for and remove any AI hallucination, and to block repeated offenders).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
so we end up with "OKA screwed up again" not "editor x screwed up again".
As it should be. This is a structural and process problem, not a problem of a few bad actors. It's hard to blame Editor X for using AI when they were specifically told to use AI.Gnomingstuff (talk)21:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This seems promising. Is there, though, a specific reason why you chose a four-strike rule as opposed to three strikes? Also, it would be useful to have a table or something along those lines of OKA editors and the articles that they make so that tracking/auditing is made easier, as per GnomingStuff. Then there’s also the LLM translation RfC, which covers OKA. If the RfC passes, would this proposal be made redundant or would the measures here be taken as precedent?Iseult Δxtalk to me21:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly support this as a baseline from which we can start, and I believe the question of "moral issues" of LLMs is ultimately a red herring, there are a few more things I would like to see addressed.For example, the original remedies suggested transparency in the OKA process: thetargeted donations program is an aspect of this, andour paid-editing policy would require these to be disclosed. Additionally, large-scale editing campaigns (such aslead format changes in many articles at once) should require explicit on-wiki consensus rather than OKA-specific consensus.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)21:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as bare-minimum. This is aWP:CIR issue: every editor, regardless of what motivates them to edit and what tools they use, is responsible for verifying the information they put on Wikipedia. If an editor is utilising a tool that has a higher likelihood of making mistakes (hallucinating references or substantially changing the meaning of translated text), they should be extra vigilant in verifying both references and the integrity of the text. This is the absolute minimum level of competency we should expect ofall editors, volunteer or paid. Realistically, this is not an issue that can be fully addressed with onwiki sanctions alone - what's really needed is improvements to internal oversight and procedure at OKA, which is obviously out of our hands here, but I hope this thread has given7804j food for thought about where improvements can be made. Currently, issues identified with OKA editors' work internally and onwiki seem to exist in separate streams: issues identified internally are, presumably, dealt with internally, and issues identified onwiki may be addressed onwikior internally. I think we need better transparency here, so both OKA editors and the wider community can be on the same page when issues arise to allow both groups to better identify ongoing issues.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)01:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we also need further clarification, transparency, and community consensus on the paid editing aspect of OKA.Chaotic Enby's suggestions above regarding appropriate disclosure of targeted editing and onwiki consensus for large-scale changes are a good start, but I have a few other things I think are worth discussing further.
OKA's translation taskforce page statesSince OKA translators are paid editors, according toWP:FCOI, all their contributions to English Wikipedia are considered to have a conflict of interest. As a result, they are not allowed to create new articles here directly, but must use the articles for creation (AfC) process - this is good, but thetargeted donations add an extra wrinkle - I think a distinction should be made between edits directly related to and not directly related to these donations when declaring COI. As a starting point, if not being done already (I don'tthink it is, but apologies if I am incorrect!), I think specific disclosures ("I was paid to edit this article on [topic A] as part of my paid editing work funded by a donation from [donor associated with topic A], see [insert link to OKA targeted donations page]") would be much better than the standard COI disclosure. A list of edits made at the direction of donors would also be helpful, if it doesn't exist already.
OKA's Meta page states thatIndividuals who donate over CHF 5,000 per year are eligible to join OKA as formal members with voting right in the annual assembly: @User:7804j, can you give us a bit of background on what this entails? What influence do donors who become formal members have, and what kind of matters would they vote on at these assemblies? Is there a public list of these members and their affiliations (ie. primarily editor/translator vs primarily donor)? This system appears quite opaque to those of us outside OKA, which naturally raises suspicion given that this involves paid editing, so I think transparency is in all of our best interests.
We so far never received any targeted donation, which is why we haven't disclosed any yet. This statement was more to keep the door open for any such situation in the future. If we ever do, we would make the list of such donations, their scope and requirements, public and clear. However, I would be against requiring it in the edit summary, primarily because it makes it extremely complex operationally for us to manage. Also in practice, I expect (and will require) that such targeted donations be sufficiently broad to avoid undue influence. For example, a donation could be for "any article related to Switzerland", so I wouldn't want people to think that because a translator worked on an article for a Swiss company, that this is because that particular company paid for it, when in fact it was just because they were asked to work on articles about Switzerland.
Regarding the donation of 5,000 CHF and above: this is linked to our legal status as an association, which requires a mechanism for adhesion. We would vet such members, so not everyone who donates 5000 will automatically be able to join as a member. We can disclose these members if the community is interested, but so far they only consist of myself and people I am close with who donated such amounts (none of them are active on Wikipedia).7804j (talk)07:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support. This is a sensible proposal, grounded in existing English Wikipedia policy. I'm not certain it is necessary, nor am I certain it will fix what it aims to fix, but it's better than the pitchfork mob approach above.
Necessary? In my experience, 7804j has been very receptive to specific, actionable feedback, including rapidly firing an OKA editor who was falsifying sources (link to discussion). In that case, it took only one warning for action from OKA itself, far fewer than the four warnings proposed here. It is alarming that it seems nobody went to 7804j's talk page to raise concerns about the LLM rewrites of existing articles before bringing the issue to this noticeboard, which would have been a far more efficient way of resolving this.
Sufficient? The challenge with detecting issues in OKA drafts is that they tend to be very long and largely unproblematic. In the case I linked above, @MCE89 detected serious issues, but those same issues had been missed by several other reviewers – it's not in the purview of an AfC/NPP reviewer to meticulously check source–text integrity, esp. for OKA drafts which are usually fine (source: my own AfC reviews of OKA content, which often include spot-checks, and also CE's analysis below), when there is so much actual crap that needs their attention. This proposal theoretically makes it easier to block OKA editors, but will we actually do that? Will we actually check any more than we currently do? I doubt it.Toadspike[Talk]02:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly supportive. As others mentioned, this proposal imposes stricter criteria on OKA editors than on regular editors, but I can nonetheless support it as the requirements and process listed is very sensible, and already consistent with our own guidelines.
The only part I disagree with, however, is to require that the content of every offline source is checked. As others have pointed out, it is often very difficult or impossible to check the content of a book, especially when these aren't digitized or extremely expensive. I agree that translators should be required to check the content of anynew offline source they add to ensure it isn't hallucinated, and of any online source, but in the context of a translation of offline references, I think it should be sufficient to ensure that the reference was correctly placed and translated and thus not hallucinated. As others mentioned, this is the same standard that we would hold non-OKA translators to.
Without this exception, I expect that we would need to throw out so many articles or paragraphs that translation would become effectively impossible7804j (talk)07:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moral oppose - I'll just say it: I don't think we should be encouraging people, let alonepaying people, to add AI content to Wikipedia at all. I'm not sure why that's being framed as an extreme stance; I suspect if we asked readers whether they think people should be paid to add AI content to Wikipedia, the median response would be closer to "no, what the fuck?". Scapegoating a handful of editors for doing exactly what they were told to do is closer to a "pitchfork mob" stance, imo.
This isn't analogous to WikiEdu because WikiEdu doesn't tell students to use AI -- they discourage it in their training guide, and they've been receptive to feedback on the specifics. Obviously some students are going to do it anyway, but that's entirely on them, it's not part of their instructions.Gnomingstuff (talk)09:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect if we asked readers whether they think people should be paid to add AI content to Wikipedia, the median response would be closer to "no, what the fuck?" Are you referring to the same readers (i.e., consumers of information online) who are slowly shifting to using LLMs in lieu of search engines and coming to trust LLMs more and more? This opposition to LLM use within the community does not map onto the real world.voorts (talk/contributions)21:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't map onto the real world, then Wikimedia wouldn't be running an enormous fundraising campaign about how Wikipedia is "human-created". Generally speaking, people don't do ad campaigns about unpopular opinions.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are plenty of opinions that would entail both using LLMs as a source of information and also strongly opposing it for Wikipedia editing. Including the fact that it's one of the maininputs for LLMs, and you might not want such a thing to be filled with LLMoutput.Sesquilinear (talk)03:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will support essentially any plausibly actionable accountability mechanism for machine-assisted translations. This will add accountability from day 1. It will also allow for enforcement without having to file a complex LLM/machine translation case at ANI, which is sufficiently unpleasant that it deters reporting.NicheSports (talk)15:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If they can't verify a source due to not having the original book/document, perhaps they could tag it so someone else can check?
Since AI is prone to embellishments, I'm rather wary of just leaving those alone without any human verification.
Otherwise, my gut feeling is that it's reasonable to expect that an editor who is being paid (even a little) and has access to additional training & support when compared to the standard volunteer editor, should be held to a higher standard - especially when relying heavily on a tool that's broadly untested (this project was/is part of the test), constantly evolving and is well known to produce errors when it's not used correctly.
We may loosen the reins as time goes on, but I feel that the project needs extra guardrails until we have enough data and long-term experience of the project to make that determination.
BTW I was a bit surprised to see that the three Senior editors/Managers have around 5k, 3k and 2k edits respectfully, which isn't egregiously low but isn't as high as I was expecting to see for that position. That's not to say they're not competent as some of them clearly are, I was just expecting more experience (perhaps incorrectly).Blue Sonnet (talk)15:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify regarding the senior editors: it's not based solely on the quantity of edits, but to a larger degree on factors such as the quality of their contributions, their ability to coach others and to improve our existing processes. Typically, once they receive that role, their edit counts tend to decrease as they spend more time on coaching. Also, note that OKA edits include more bytes on average than the typical edit, since they are often focused on very large articles.7804j (talk)16:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are your workers compensated based on time, or based on how many words/bytes they produce? Apologies if you have already answered that elsewhere in this discussion.--Gurkubondinn (talk)23:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are compensated solely based on the time they report, in order to encourage people to focus on quality over quantity. Though if a translator has an extremely very low output compared to others, we would discuss with them to understand what's going on (and also to catch fraud, as we've had instances of people reporting "fake" hours).7804j (talk)12:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue-Sonnet, edit count for someone doing high-quality translations is going to be very low. Of all my edits, the ones that took the most time and effort - hours for each - were my translations. For someone exclusively focused on content work 5k edits is quite high indeed and represents a lot of work. --asilvering (talk)21:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not endorsed; in fact, the second of the three mentions clearly says that it's inferior to Claude and ChatGPT. The third mention might warrant rewording/clarification that Grok is not recommended. @7804j That said, there are plenty of other tools, and it's hard to keep recommendations of best tools up-to-date - I don't know if we even have any on wiki? (And saying 'don't use LLM' is increasingly pointless, although this all reminds me of the early days of Wikipedia, when teachers in schools were telling students don't use Wikipedia - how things have changed since, eh?).
Anyway, having read that page I think the general prompt could benefit from clear instructions about not adding anything that's not in the source text, and not omitting anything (being lazy) - the most common errors we see. Oh, and in the alread-present warning "Ensure there are no AI hallucinations! In rare cases, LLMs may completely invent content that's not in the original text. If you introduce AI hallucinations, your Wikipedia risks being suspended", isn't there a word missing after "your Wikipedia"? Account?Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions! I have added them.
(by the way, feel free to directly edit our instructions if you feel like it -- as long as there are no controversial changes, I don't mind having others making edits)7804j (talk)20:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, there is no reason to disallow use of Grok as a translation tool; it seems to preform reasonably where from what anyone can see - unless you are familiar with any reliable data that says otherwise? I doubt it is going to insert Musk POV or such into most tasks (and if its hallucinations are Musk-flavord, that doesn't make them any worse or better other AI hallucinations, which we want zero of here, regardless of which LLM model produces them).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here06:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the objection is more specifically endorsing Grok. But if they're not doing that anymore, that's a step in the right direction. (As far as "introducing Musk POV," there have been some, uh, not great and hasty changes to Grok's system prompt, so that's actually a decent possibility.)Gnomingstuff (talk)15:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The very first mention of Grok in the linked documentation page is,Even for technical articles, LLMs such as Claude, ChatGPT and Grok correctly translate >90% of text and handles most formatting. That's not just permission to use Grok; it's actively saying that Grok is a good thing. The third of the three is a plain instruction:Go tohttps://claude.ai/ or chatgpt (orhttps://grok.com/). In between the two isGrok used our preferred tool, and some editors prefer it because it tends to respond better to instructions and has a higher daily cap; however, it's writing style is poorer, so it's not recommended. A mild disinclination to recommend because ofwriting style and not the fact of its being a propaganda machine from a revenge-porn company is... insufficient. Wikipedia is willing to deprecate sources; organizations that seek to contribute to Wikipedia should be willing to deprecate tools.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)23:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And we still need more than IDONTLIKEMUSK to declare Grok bad for translation. In fact, I trust OKA (which provides a lot of data) more than POVed views here. Which LLMs to use should be based on data about their efficiency/error-rate or such, not on irrelevant anecdotes about how a given AI is used to create porn or whatever.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see why your first sentence is true: many people obviously would be happy with such a straightforward declaration. Maybe you mean that you personally object to it? But that’s obvious, you’ve been saying so at great length.~2025-31850-11 (talk)11:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course -- but really what is the point of this side-discussion anyhow, the establishment or not of consensus certainly doesn't depend on one of you convincing the other one.~2026-92659-0 (talk)21:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support if necessary A tool is only as good as the user. Hold the users accountable for their edits. I see no problem with openly disclosed paid editing with reasonable actors. I too question whether it is necessary.Buffs (talk)04:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moral oppose - I am perturbed by the attitude taken by OKA representatives and their defenders throughout this discussion, which seems to be an entirely backwards way to go about getting an initiative like this off the ground and essentially fait accompli, followed by wikilawyering. Frankly, if I'd seen the back-and-forth from January 20 occur as it was happening, I probably would have blocked 7804j on the spot for a combination of CIR, NOTHERE, and generally disrespecting our community's time, effort and ethos. I am left without confidence that they will do the right thing going forward. I also share concerns about exploiting international income differentials for the project, and the community dynamics of then expecting volunteer editors to police the exploited workers and effectively decide whether or not they get to continue their jobs. That having been said, I don't want to get in the way of potentially effective regulation if we can't get consensus for asking OKA to go back to the drawing board and start with a proposal to the community and/or WMF.signed,Rosguilltalk22:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moral oppose; I do not think these measures are sufficient, but something is better than nothing. I furthermore note that even community oversight of these edits will functionally be close to none, given the scale of editing. Every editor is responsible for the content of their edits. If they use tools known to misrepresent sources even outside of translation or to insert fabulist sources, the appropriate level of scrutiny is more, not less. At minimum I would like a three-strikes-and-out system wherein each instance (not just diff) of misrepresentation is a strike.Iseult Δxtalk to me23:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2-4, oppose 1. I don't think I voted yet (and ummm it seems we are voting now? Shrug). My oppose of 1 is due to ambigious wording as discussed above, and I might support it if it's clear than that the requirement to check related to checking for a) added AI errors/halluciantions and b) ommissions (AI being lazy and not translating stuff), although b) is much less a problem. But the current wording is unclear enough it can be understood as a requirement for the translator to verify whether sources in the original article (even offline or likewise hard to access) support the original article, and that's excessive burden. In addition, I'd also add a prohibition to translate content that's LLM-generated, and a requirement to check if an article is LLM generated (at minimum, by looking at tags, but perhaps also by doing something else, like using ZeroGPT or looking at edit history? This would be a productive venue to discuss that I haven't really seen taken up by anyone here or elsewhere). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here01:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support1 as a general principle for all translations, not just OKA. Less sure about 2, individual admins can have their own discretion. Support3, somewhat addresses the reviewer time imbalance. No problem with 4, saves wikilawyering.CMD (talk)05:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION: Is there no way for Wikipedia to obtain translations of texts, other than by reliance on LLMs (Large Language Models), with their shortcomings that have been discussed above? I am human, and over many years the accuracy of my translations for Wikipedia has practically never been questioned. There must surely be other bilingual human translators who are already satisfactorily participating in the Wikipedia project or who could be recruited to it.Nihil novi (talk)07:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi It's worth noting, first, that OKA was not using LLM until recently (when? good question), but shifted to using it - which I find unsurprising, as everyone and their dog is using LLMs for translations these days. I am not sure if going back to pre-LLM days is feasible - or doable. To me, asking someone to stop using LLMs tools in translation (responsibly, of course) is akin to asking them to stop using a word processor and go back to typewriter (or hand writing).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi That it does, no disagreement here. What puzzles me is that some folks seem to think the translator should also verify whether content in the original article is correct (supported by references cited there), which IMHO goes way beyond what one can reasonably expect the translator to do.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The translator's job is to translate a text. Investigation of the reliability of the text that is being translated is a responsibility of the article's authors. It is not a house painter's responsibility to investigate the structural stability of the house.Nihil novi (talk)19:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi, I disagree quite strongly on this point, since I believe it is each contributor's responsibility to do basic due diligence so that they aren't spreading misinformation. That doesn't mean that all translators should scrupulously verify each and every claim personally, but they should at a bare minimum have done enough cross-checking to make sure that what they're publishing is not substantially false. --asilvering (talk)04:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. In general, the reliability of a text that a translator is rendering into thetarget language should already have been vetted prior to the text being translated. The only case when the translator can be held responsible for vetting thesource-language text's reliability is if the text has been introduced into the article by the translator himself.Nihil novi (talk)05:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to spot-check the first few articles inCategory:Articles translated by an OKA editor translated from French (as that is my native language and I would be able to verify them more easily).
16 May 1877 crisis: In#Initial hesitations between republic and monarchy, some offline sources were swapped without a given explanation, such as Duclert 2021, p. 122-132. being replaced with Houte 2014, p. 27. (another source that was being used somewhere else). Since both sources are offline and would be hard to access, the change being made without explanation is surprising, and I'm not especially confident about text-source integrity here. Besides this one small issue, the rest of the article is a very good translation, adapting the French Wikipedia article to the English Wikipedia's writing style while staying accurate to the original (which was a featured article).
20,000 Colombian peso note: Very accurate, couldn't find any concerning divergences between the two versions (original in French was a good article).
1879 French Senate election: Now this is a very different case. While the entire article is marked as translated, and was added in a single edit, only half of it actually comes from the French original. The first two sections are fully new, with several new sources being cited, the main two beingProvidential Men: History of a French Fascination andDictionary of Ministers (1789–1989). The latter is cited in pages 45–46 for the one/two-round electoral system. The relevant pages talk about completely unrelated personalities (Étienne Clavière,Charles Cochon de Lapparent,Jean-Baptiste Collin de Sussy andEmmanuel Crétet), all dead long before the relevant senate election, or even the Third Republic itself! I couldn't find an online version of the former, but it appears to be a series of biographies of "great men", which doesn't seem especially consistent with it being used to source the organization of a senate election.
1914 French mobilization: Despite the source being again a featured article, there are unsourced paragraphs, which were ported (and expanded!) in the translated version. Unsourced sentences likeA small cadre of volunteer career officers and NCOs would be supplemented by millions of reservists, who had received training through their mandatory two-year-service at age 20 and periodic refresher trainings. appear from virtually nowhere (and is contradicted a few paragraphs below, where it is stated that the duration of military service varied as different laws were passed). Besides that, a few minor issues (the territorial army and its reserve being confused,état de siège being half-translated asstate de siège, broken piped links like "including Algeria"), but nothing too dramatic.
Conclusion? The average OKA translation is certainly good, but errors are still present, especially when the source article has unsourced paragraphs or empty sections, with text-source integrity being one of the main worries.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)22:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby It's good to have some data. What you missed is identifying the specific translators responsible for the work. The one problematic article you found, 1879 one, is work of @Leeanah, and perWP:DUCK, I am concluding this particular translator (whose substandard work is what started this entire issue AFAIK) has been using LLM without checking for AI hallucinations. I would recommend pulling all her content from mainspace or at least tagging them with LLM warnings, and I would also ban that editor from any new submissions until they fix their past messes. Now, all the other articles were penned by different translators - which is a good sign, as it indicates most OKA translators are proofreading their work more carefully. So, really, all the evidence we have points to a single "bad egg" (although, of course, this is still just a sample, and it's possible more problems could be found - laziness is hardly a rare vice).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here04:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not accurate - did you click through and read any of the discussionsqcne linked in his original post? The linked discussions involve multiple editors, as well as7804j themself being forthright about the fact that a small number of OKA editors were not doing the right thing in certain cases. Thereare some problems with a small portion of OKA editors, and denying that problems exist does not fix them.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)04:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should make a table, and clearly indicate what percentage of OKA editors have been found to be fall significantly below our standards, what action was taken by OKA and the community, and how that percentage compares to other projects such s Wiki Edu and so on. Otherwise we are talking apples, oranges, ILIKEITs and IDONLIKEITs.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems like two editors here (Leeanah and Luizadnts) seem to have been the cause of quite a few of the issues raised throughout the thread. They had already received a formal warning, and it seems the articles here predate that warning. I've raised these specific points to them, and told them to no longer create any new articles until they have reviewed in depthall of the articles they have previously created. I have also asked them to keep a detailed internal tracker of their progress. It has been communicated to them that their ability to continue receiving OKA grants will be contingent on them being able to correctly review and fix all of their previously published content.7804j (talk)15:25, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the first short article in the W's,Walecznych Street (note I do not speak Polish). Noticeably AI. Promotional in tone, but besides the AI compulsion to turn "has" into "features," the original seems to have been somewhat promotional too. Some content has been removed, but mostly unsourced and/or trivial stuff, so that's fine. However, there are some meaning changes:
Google Translate mentions 11 Walecznych Street having a "glass staircase" whereas the translated article says "glazed staircase," which are two different things ("glazed" implies ceramic, wood, etc). I don't know which is more accurate -- "glass" does seem suspect, admittedly.
The translation changes "designed by Helena and Szymon Syrkus" tobuilt by them, which seems likely to be factually wrong, especially since the same word is repeatedly translated as "designed" elsewhere.
The translation claims that 12 Walecznych Street is "similar to the Kiltynowicz villa," but the Polish article seems to only claim that the clinker slabs are, not the whole house.
The translation changes "window openings" for 37 Walecznych Street (per Google Translate again) to "rounded windows" out of nowhere.These don't look rounded to me (assuming this is the right house -- another angle seems to show a "37" marker on the wood house and it's the only wood-looking one, so I'm guessing it is -- and there aren't different windows out back or something)
@Gnomingstuff Since I am rather fluent in Polish: 1) glass > glazed, it's a staircase with, hmmmm, that actually gave me a pause. Big windows? Walls made of mostly glass? It's not made from glass, obviously. Literary translation would be "glassy", which obviously is not correct, it's late at night and I am blanking on the right terminology. Anyway, glazed is an error. 2) Yes, designed. 3) The use of these slabs on the ground floor, to be exact (as in, it's the use that's called similar, not the slabs - nor the whole house). 4) 36A not 37 - which is a good reminder that human beings like you and me are perfectly capable of making errors too. Anyway, the original text was indeed wrong ("It features rounded windows, a curved corner, and a garden-facing terrace"). The correct translation would be : "Its characteristic features include windows*, a curved corner, and a garden-facing terrace". *-> Polish text says, literary, "window openings", which is unclear in Polish and seems to me (again, late night, and I am not an architecture expert or fan) to be just a pointlessly long ways of saying window. Anyway, yes, that translation had some minor problems, but whether there are LLM errors or human errors, I am not sure, and in either case, they are minor errors, not something I'd reprimand someone over.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here14:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a disadvantage, as i don't know what "OKA" is, and I don't have access to the context in which "przeszklona klatka schodowa" appears. Among perhaps other possibilities, it might be a "glass-enclosed staircase" or "glassed-in staircase". Is there a link to the Polish text?Nihil novi (talk)01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The house is visible on Google Street View (link blocked by Wikipedia). While it's not obvious what the stairs themselves are like, the centre of the building, as seen from the street, is all window from ground floor lintel to top floor ceiling. Assuming the stairs are inside those windows, I'd call it a "glazed stairwell".Daveosaurus (talk)07:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'm not sure I agree with daveosaurus. 'Glazed' typically implies a layer of some kind of lacquer applied onto another surface. I would not usually use it for something 'encased in glass' or 'surrounded by windows' or the like, nor would I use it for something made of glass; that would be 'glassy' or simply 'glass'Athanelar (talk)11:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Oliwiasocz Could you take a look at the above, and make changes where needed? As highlighted, it seems like several of the issues are from the source article, so I'd recommend fixing both the source and the translation7804j (talk)15:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is aspot check, to see what the proportion of errors is on a random sample of articles. Of course, we can't physically check every single translation, so checking a sample of 5 or so allows us to see how frequent/rare errors are.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)17:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I used "glazed" because inwiktionary it was described as "(architecture, construction) Having glass in the windows". Maybe using "stairwell with windows" would be better here? The word in the Polish article seems to be correct as well, since thePolish version of wiktionary also describes it as "one that has a large amount of glass surfaces".
Yes, it was supposed to be "...built between 1935 and 1937 and designed by...".
The original translation may have sounded confusing, so I think it could be reworded to "...slightly recessed ground floor clad in clinker tiles (similarly to the Kiltynowicz villa at 26 Katowicka Street)..."?
Yes, I have made a mistake with using "rounded windows". This phrase could be translated as "window openings" in a more technical way, but leaving just "windows" is completely fine. I also changed the phrase in the Polish article.
Thanks for the clarifications on the Polish wording (and on the address as well, my mistake there) -- my gut sense was also that the original article was maybe leaning a bit much into architectural trivia.
Not sure, though, how pointing out factual inaccuracies in an article so they can be fixed and the article can be improved, though, is "devolving" -- it's literally the whole point of a wiki. Really not sure why you thought I was reprimanding anyone; if I wanted to reprimand someone I would just do that, there's a reason I didn't single out the editor.Gnomingstuff (talk)23:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Improving articles is all good. And I'll note that Oliwiasocz, who has translated many articles form pl wiki over the years, is, IMHO, a good example of positive value OKA has brought to the project. She has translated, among others, several of my articles, some of which were GA on pl wiki, and, after minor c/e, were recognized as GA here too.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is too concentrated on Grok, and as such is damning by association. There is no proof that Grok is the biggest source of deepfake pics, and their existence is irrelevant. The question is how does Grok compare to the Content translation tool (semi protected I think in en, but available elsewhere) and google babblefish. I suspect that It's better than both. But it's a very low bar ,,Wakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b21:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WMF US donation Stewardahip who received the Zimmerman grant.. Open knowledge association also has a similar name to the international Open Knowledge Foundation (opendata.ch).which also has links to Wikimedia,.
WMF google as Zimmerman seems to work for google (Potential COI as google matched giving also gives money to WMF, and this money may have come from Google Ch matched giving
@asilvering - Apologies for lack of clarity. @User:Gnomingstuff mentioned PR concerns, but I don't think the above discussion has addressed potential WMF governance and oversight responsibilities enough. Two Wikimedia entities are involved granting and receiving similar amounts in different countries, it is unclear whether this is linked to the Google (a partner) donation matching system, and there may be legal restrictions involving a grant recipient paying money into a third country. WMF should be informedWakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b11:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that if they gave a grant to the organization they are aware of the legal side already, and at any rate I'm not sure what this would be intended to accomplish.Gnomingstuff (talk)13:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether they are aware.
the donation and the grants are looked after by separate departments, and this case also in two different organisations and involve the CEO of OKA and OKA,
the application form has no option does not mention donations with matching grants. This is called round tripping or circular funding, and can cause concerns with|donor matching schemes and reallocation of tied funds
TheCH grant application form states that "Projects that replace volunteer action by directly funding someone to create content (e.g. editing articles, uploading photos)" are not eligible for funding, butOKA were funded.
1. Should the WMF policy be changed on paid edits to exclude entities like OKA?
OKA are not breaking anyWMF policies. Although a WMF posted in 2025 called|Should I pay for a Wikipedia article?stated "The Wikimedia Foundation does not offer Wikipedia editing services of any kind in exchange for fees, although it does seek charitable donations to keep Wikipedia running.". but WMF grants are effectively subsidising paid editinh
2. Grant funding of paid editor amd paid project manager's who edit
TheCH grant application form states that "Projects that replace volunteer action by directly funding someone to create content (e.g. editing articles, uploading photos)" ot eligible for funding, butOKA were funded
3. Do they wish to discuss withOKA about statements on their website and their process
"Hundreds of thousands of high-quality articles are not translated.", the articles they are translating are not high quality in terms of article class"
High Quality - their instructions " "Don't always translate the whole article. You are not required to replicate a source article's entire structure." spwikipedia:disrupt
They are mis-leading in their statements "Science, technology, engineering, and Finance are lacking compared to topics such as History, Geography, and Humanities. "
They wish to create articles in "Content from non-anglophone countries that is underrepresented.', but from PT, DE, FR, and ES
4. OKA statistics
"So far, we have created2,200+ new articles on Wikipedia, which generate 8m views per year."
Current figure is 4896 - they point to their annual report for the 8 million views
They have 12,000 articles planned
5. WMF statistics
OAK statistics are , butoutreach statistics are very different 13.5K Articles Created, 47.1K Articles Edited, 124K Total Edits
The statistics from paid editing are counting towards the totals for the outreach program
6. Voting
Some of these editors are eligible to vote.
7. AI
The WMF AI strategy document specifies that AI must be open weight. They are not using the mostly paid open weight models, and there is no record of which one was usedWakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b14:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Long discussions become confusing quickly, as points are repeated or questioned. Could we create this as a page and then use our editing skills to create a summary, then get consensus on that?Wakelamp (talk)d[@-@]b13:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a decent portion of these are by a few editors that tie heavily to sports categories. Of the 43 discussions still open from 2025, 28 of them are sports sub-categories with 23 of those discussions by just one user. --Super Goku V (talk)12:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert is under asuspended topic ban from CfD, which means any admin could reimpose it as an AE action. After having read through those talk page comments I'm seriously tempted to do so (which is unusual for me since I almost never involve myself as an admin in conduct matters).* Pppery *it has begun...18:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Back in December, I encouraged Johnpacklambert to hold off on further college sports nominations because they didn't seem headed anywhere but "no consensus". I haven't checked everywhere, but I'm pretty sure he took my advice, which eliminated the largest group of nominations but the backlog remains.RevelationDirect (talk)22:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, I believe the last sports related discussion was December 28th. I believe most of the January batch of discussions are about people born or living in countries. --Super Goku V (talk)23:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I was asked to wait on nominating more categories related to sports until the existing ones were closed I stopped nominating more categories related for sports. I have tried to seek consensus. I have tried to respond to advice. I have not nominated one sports Category since he made that request. I am teying to be collaborative with others. I am trying to discuss the issues involved in building categories. I am trying to work through the issues of making it so categories. The issue with sports nominations was brought up. I responded by not making any others. I have tried to be cooperative. I have not made even one more sports nomination since then.John Pack Lambert (talk)22:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did listen to requests about making larger nominations. I made a nomination with 108 categories related toCategory:Generals by nationality. I also made a nomination related to all the categories underCategory:Slaves by nationality. I am sorry if my actions have caused disruption. I have been trying to follow the general guidelines of categorization. I have been trying to seek consensus. I will try to do this more in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk)22:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I am trying to make sure I clearly explain my position. I will seek to be more concise in presenting my position. I will also seek to where possible bundle nominations in larger groups. I appreciate all the work you and others do to improve Wikipedia and hope that we can find ways to do so more in the future. I will try to be more concise in my statement in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk)11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appriciate your efforts. I really do. I wonder if there's a way to help you calibrate the volume. What if you limited yourself to 3 nominations per day and had a max word count? I think that would help a lot by encouraging you to think thru the arguments and prioritize the important ones.SMasonGarrison13:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have apologized for rhat. I am very sorry. I have tried to correct my mistakes. I was trying to adapt to the advice of others and apply it. I was trying to heed the advice ilof some editors that both the country served for and nationality are defining. I am sorry that I jumped the gunin trying to implement it.John Pack Lambert (talk)03:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you've apologized. But like, this is illustrative of the challenge that I don't think you really appreciate. Now there are 37 subcats of Category:Generals by country to clean up with nearly 1000 people (according to petscanhttps://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=42588159), and that's already after you emptied 13 of those categories. Practically, the only thing I did today was try to add all the missing parent categories of FOOian generals in the vain hope of restoring the category tree to the status quo.SMasonGarrison04:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you've apologized. It's notjust this specific case, it's that you make an overwhelming number of changes, and a sizable number of them are inconsistent with the consensus about nationality versus country. I feel like I ask you to do the same handful of maintenience things over and over again that are consistent with how most people think about nationality.. it's one of the reasons I don't feel like I have the bandwidth to help with closing CFDs.SMasonGarrison05:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar mess to slavery categories. There seems to be a total local of understanding about what categories are for and for convention by LambertKingbird1 (talk)08:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that giving more people permission would be helpful. We can have a vetting process like NPP does. (I've still not got the hang of closings myself, so finding ways to make it easier for folks to learn the process might be helpful regardless).SMasonGarrison13:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said in the past, I think giving access toTemplate editors could be a way forward for this. We trust them with pretty disruptive templates. Plus if one starts posting "delete" results, I think that'd be noticed rather quickly. Please ping me if someone starts a discussion on this. -jc3703:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please no. The template editor right is already heavily overloaded. Competence in closing deletion discussions has very little to do with competence in editing high-risk templates (or DYK queues, which I also think was done wrong). If we want to unbundle access to CFDW then do it right and create a separate "CFDW editor" user group.* Pppery *it has begun...16:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle is absolutely correct here. Plus, there is the problem, that "bundled" group noms can end up a train wreck, due to many moving parts. And even the most well-researched nominator can be surprised by the direction a discussion may go. -jc3703:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is the added issue that broad complex nominations have the potential to drag on as people bring up specific issues about individual cases. A single Category nomination has less potential to drag a long time. While I understand why there is a view we should nominate whole sets of categories, it would seem that if the issue is only about the parent category it should be able to be nominated on its own. This is what has been done withCategory:Physicians although that is somewhat unique in that there is a fully matching article. Lots of occupational categories there is an article on the field but not on the profession itself.John Pack Lambert (talk)01:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you really need to slow down. Do the core category first. Wait for it to close, and then do follow up nominations AFTER it is closed.SMasonGarrison13:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to broaden this out to the general issue of CfD closures, is there any sort of tool that reduces straightforward closes to a few clicks, as there is for closing requested moves?BD2412T22:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that XFDC doesn't know how to add content toWP:CFDW.User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/CFDlister is the only tool that comes close, but that right now only helps non-admins (or admins who want to cosplay as non-admins). No tool knows how to add content to CFDW itself. Aside from all that, CFD tends to use a much less rigid format than other deletion discussion venues so there are many nominations that no tool can parse.* Pppery *it has begun...01:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to help out while also dealing with FfD and copyright cleanup's low bus factors. So many of these closes have nightmarish, time consuming implementations that I personally don't feel comfortable doing even though I'm confident in my closes. Is there any way we can at least ping participants to help implement closes/a place we can centralize that better? These mass noms are also really difficult to work through at times, since half the time they descend into split proposals that also get very messy to close. XFDC is throwing the Talk:Edit error more than it does FfD. I'm tempted to just start no-consensusing the ones that have devolved into arguing with no clear BARTENDER-worthy results after a relist or two, even though that doesn't seem to be a very popular outcome.Sennecaster (Chat)20:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to appeal the topic ban to which I am subject:[16]. I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than the topic ban, apart from one IBAN ten years ago. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.TH1980 (talk)00:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the topic ban is "any edit, or editing any page, related to the topic area of Japan.", and was imposed in July 2020 appealable after six months. It was formally imposed bySwarm. The entry atWP:EDRC#TH1980 notes it as the reinstatement of a ban originally placed in 2016:
The closer of the May 2020 discussion and filer of the July 2020 discussionGirth Summit wrote at the latterFirst, the request for an unban was not, it appears, entirely accurate. TH1980 said in their appeal "I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article". That is not true: the findings of fact in this arbcom case included that TH1980 has in the past both edit warred and hounded another editor, and it ended up with an indefinite IBan with Hijiri88 - that is a sanction. The assertion that the concerns were about a single article is also not correct - the discussion that led to their topic ban actually concerned edit warring on two articles, Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan. There is no claim in this request about a single article, but the rest looks rather similar.
I am explicitly not expressing an opinion either way on this appeal (although I may do in the future). It's worth noting that I was one of the arbitrators active on theCatflatp08 and Hijiri88 arbitration case referenced above, but I didn't even remember that TH1980 was involved with that case before reading Girth Summit's comment, let alone any details of how they were involved or what findings were made regarding them.Thryduulf (talk)01:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any warnings & over 1500 edits since the reinstated TBAN which is good.
That said, immediately returning to problematic behaviour straight after having the ban lifted is a little concerning. That was a gap of four years (banned 2016 & lifted 2020), not so far off the current five year gap.
It's a speciality field of mine, and I have much knowledge and expertise in the field. My clean block log shows that I could make constructive contributions in this area without stepping on any toes, because I have learned how to cooperate with other users.TH1980 (talk)02:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TH1980, in the "Ban reinstated" discussion, as Thryduulf quotes, Girth Summit pointed out that you had in fact had a sanction other than the topic ban. Why did you repeat that inaccurate claim in this appeal statement?Schazjmd(talk)20:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's because they just cut and pasted their 2020 appeal, deleting one sentence about the "single article". Their 2016 appeal is also closely paraphrased.
I've probably spent more time writing this post than they spent writing their appeal.
December 2016:As can be seen in my block log, I have never been blocked from editing Wikipedia before, and I have a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, so I feel that now my topic ban should be lifted.[17]
May 2020:I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.[18]
Current:I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than the topic ban. Furthermore, my account contribution list shows a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I feel that my topic ban can now be lifted.Blue Sonnet (talk)20:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am literally not allowed to talk about that on Wikipedia. As far as I know, editing restrictions do apply to the administrator's noticeboard as well. There's a reason why I have a clean block log. I don't feel inclined to mention things that I will be blocked for mentioning. I would be willing to re-write and re-submit my appeal, but if it concerns an unrelated editing restriction, then I guess we would have to talk by e-mail, not on Wikipedia.TH1980 (talk)21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban is untrue, and you were made aware of that the last time that you appealed. You chose to repeat it rather than to word your appeal in a more honest fashion. That, on top of an appeal that doesn't offer the community any acknowledgement of the conduct that resulted in the topic ban and its reinstatement doesn't inspire confidence that it won't be repeated.Schazjmd(talk)23:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The problem is that you explicitly claimed that you've never had any other sanction as an argument for lifting your topic ban - even after it was pointed out previously that this was not true. Then you did it again here.
I apologize for that, but I was just concerned about it, because normally being told to violate an editing restriction isn't a legitimate reason to violate it. Yes, it's true that ten years ago I received a two-way IBAN. My understanding of the matter was basically the same as what Rosguill said, that I can only mention it in a thread related to it, but not in an unrelated thread like this one. I see that there's some disagreement between the admins over what is and is not a violation of editing restrictions, but I never tried to deceive. Anyway, my own conduct is proof of my good will. Actions to me are more important than words. I've never complained about this sanction or attempted to circumvent it, and I learn new things all the time about how to edit constructively in cooperation with others. This appeal is intended to show the community that I want to move on from the past and edit articles about Japan in the same way I have edited in other fields for the last six years.TH1980 (talk)00:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you fully understand here. You concealed the existence of prior sanctions from your appeal apparently because you believed mentioning those sanctions would violate them. What is wanted is an accurate appeal, not a misleading one. --Super Goku V (talk)01:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not certain that the administrator's noticeboard is entirely exempt from IBAN restrictions, so I do not want to go into details, but as you can see right above, "Mentioning the existence of a ban as part of a ban appeal is allowed", but since this is not an appeal of the ban, I am not allowed. Anyway, I am sure this is a matter where you are unlikely to find two admins who agree, but it is irrelevant since I have already amended my appeal, so I hope we can now put this controversy aside.TH1980 (talk)18:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For your future reference, none of the rules related to bans are stupid enough to require you to lie or tell only a partial truth. There is no prohibition on mentioning the existence of a ban, especially when it is relevant to the context - and that absolutely includes appeals of other bans.
If you did not think the IBAN was relevant to your appeal you could just have not mentioned it, but without stating it does not exist. However the better choice would have been to say something like "I also have an interaction ban with Hijiri88, but I am not appealing that." That would not be a violation of anything (pinging them would be though), would be useful context for reviewers and would show you have learned from your last appeal.
What ban appeal reviewers are looking for is, broadly, evidence of four things:
That you understand why the ban was placed
That you have learned from the mistakes you made that resulted in the ban
That you have learned from any feedback given, especially including in any unsuccessful appeals
That the ban is no longer needed
By repeating a statement that was explicitly highlighted as false in your previous appeal, you are effectively saying that you are not listening and that you have not learned from that previous appeal. That is pretty much guaranteed to result in this appeal being unsuccessful.Thryduulf (talk)21:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not because of the isssues around the IBan discussed above, but because there's no indication TH1980 has learned from the prior declined appeals. Simply repeating the same request is not productive. TH1980 should show what has changed rendering the t-ban moot. Not seeing that in this appeal nor in their edits.StarMississippi19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable blocking of, and deletion of articles authored by, User:Fernando Rahal
I am requesting some administrator attention atUser talk:Fernando Rahal, regarding blocking and article deletion that seems like a misstep. It is quite possible that there are things that I did not see and do not have access to as a non-admin, but the articles I saw did not appear deletion-worthy or block-worthy. –Jonesey95 (talk)03:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In essence, all those articles had very obvious signs ofpromotional writing. At least one of them (not sure about all) had been recreated after recently being deleted, which got my attention.Gommeh(talk!sign!)11:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gommeh, can you expand on that? I really don't see the case for G11 at all in the five or so I spot-checked, which were all more or less just bare factual sentences and a handful of tables. --asilvering (talk)00:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said below I wouldn't comment further on this, but I changed my mind. When I waspatrolling new pages, I saw that the articles had been recreated shortly following deletion, so I believed the tagging for G11 was appropriate and assumed that the deletion rationale was valid. If someone wanted to question why they were deleted, I thought, they could have gone toWP:DRV and argued their case there, which they don't appear to have ever done. I do think that the articles were not well-written and definitely weren't ready for mainspace (a few of them were badly translated from Portuguese and clearly not carefully proofread). Perhaps I should have just moved them all to draftspace so the editor could have more time to work on them.
Additionally, in case the blocked editor(s) who created the articles are reading this discussion, I'm also sorry for the several talk page notifications you got letting you know the articles were tagged for speedy deletion... I didn't realize Twinkle had an option to turn that off; I would have just sent one long message instead.Gommeh(talk!sign!)14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to Refund some of these to an established editor as they are IMO salvageable. Iprobably would not have bulk deleted these as Rahal's conduct here isn't sufficiently disruptive but it's probably not worth restoring and relitigating each individually.StarMississippi18:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say they're promotional at all, to be honest. Whether they'renotable is another question, but that should have been dealt with through normal deletion methods.Black Kite (talk)12:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Jimfbleak has a history of deletions ranging from overly-harsh to entirely incorrect (a number of deletions made are, for example, entirely against deletion policy). This is something I haveraised with him onmultiple occasions before, and not something that seems to have been fixed by these previous attempts at raising it.CoconutOctopustalk13:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away until just now, only just seen this. I think that the block, as I've said onUser_talk:Fernando Rahal#February 2026 is justified. As-- Deepfriedokra says, "cross-Wiki socking". I've said there that I'm happy for any admin who thinks this is a good faith editor to feel free to unblock, despite the socking and block on pt-wiki.
Accidentally saved there. I can see why the G11 may be seen as less clear cut, and if people think I made the wong decison, fine with me. I think it's a pity thatCoconutOctopus's approach to the matter seems to be that because it's me, it must be wrong, rather than actually commenting on the block and deletions in questionJimfbleak -talk to me?14:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is not why I made the point I did; merely that I unfortunately believe the issue of speedy deletions performed by yourself is something at this time needing wider community input.CoconutOctopustalk14:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, would you consider replacing the block rationale? It does not appear to make sense. The editor was clearly here to build an encyclopedia, but they were apparently doing it using multiple accounts. It is not clear to me whether the editor was given a chance to explain those multiple accounts. I will comment on the deletions rather than the admin: I think the CSD tags were incorrect, as I posted on the creator's talk page. Any good-faith efforts to amend this messy situation would be appreciated. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak,CoconutOctopus's approach to the matter seems to be that because it's me, it must be wrong is a bizarre thing to say in response to someone saying that they've noticed you've had a pattern of making similarly incorrect deletions. Three adminsin this thread pointed out that G11 was incorrect in this case before CO even got here. --asilvering (talk)12:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Everyone else who has commented here clearly looked has at least the deletion and often the block before doing so. There is no indication that@CoconutOctopus: did so, and they certainly didn't mention the articles in question in two posts here. I'm happy to accept and respond to criticism from editors who have actuallylooked at the articles and the accounts associated with them. If CoconutOctopus instead wants to address what they see as a wider issue, I respectfully suggest that they start a separate admin thread instead of trying to redirect this discussion page to a different agendaJimfbleak -talk to me?14:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the deletions in this case were incorrect. I have no thoughts on the block. I believed my views on the deletion would be evident by my post, I apologise if that was not the case.CoconutOctopustalk14:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus thanks for clarification. If I haven't made it clear that I accept the G11 might not be appropriate, I do so now. The block is a different matter, and looking at the comments above, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the editor concerned and their variousalter egos are not here in good faith, as a CU might confirmJimfbleak -talk to me?14:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've too much going on in RL at present, I'm stepping back from all but the most clear-cut deletions and blocks for the time being until things calm down in my real lifeJimfbleak -talk to me?15:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus below is clear that no removal of the pblock is going to happen. There were movements to both impose a tban from CT/SA, and for a complete community ban, but neither of those seems to have mustered much traction. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please copy my appeal to thearbitration enforcement noticeboard oradministrators' noticeboard. } just edited and fixed information and You blocked me?? see the previous part of the edited page by me puranmal Singh Chandel of gidhaur. A giy clearly used the news article as source (2 years ago), yet you let them use it on Wikipedia. And when I fixed that That too from a source that's already on the website. Will you block me for that? What military edit did I make there? Even in the Vidyadhar section, I had only included the full information of the Sorres side, not separately. So kidnly unblock me. If you want me to stay aware from History pages then tell me directly please, I will stay away from thatChandel itihasam zy (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I acknowledge that my edits violated the ecr, and I take responsibility for not adhering to it despite prior warning. I was thinking admins might that if I edit correctly with the source then there will be no problem, Because on the page where I edited the article of Puranmal, the source of the news was given there. So I thought if he can edit the page with news as a source, then why not I can with the authentic source. And about Vidyadharvarman's Wikipedia. victory was hidden by showing half side of historeans! as if he had lost. I just corrected that with the source from the same book cited. Still you are saying so, fine it was totally my fault. And I'm sorry.
Going forward, I will fully comply with ecr by using article talk pages and formal edit requests only in military area or fully leave that topic till 500 edits, and I will not edit restricted articles directly untill eligible. I respectfully request reconsideration of the current block and the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia's policies.Chandel itihasam zy (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Their appeal is presented here for community consideration. Chandel itihasam zy is not blocked from editing this noticeboard, so they are able to respond here. — Newslingertalk18:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose unless the partial block is replaced with a topic ban fromWP:CT/SA - this editor didn't stumble into a violation, but has had the contentious topics rules spelled out to them on myriad occasions, to no avail. As of about 12 hours ago, they still claimed they thought making a sourced edit was an exception, showing no meaningful comprehension of months of countless warnings, an AE filing, and three blocks. I do not know whether the inability to adjust behavior is them beingunable orunwilling to do so, but I do know that I don't think their user rights should go back to the pre-AE status quo, when that status quo was completely ineffective at preventing inappropriate editing.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)20:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with topic ban fromWP:CT/SA - You might take a different topic, but please use talk pages of articles covered under highly contentious topics atWP:CTOPS. Otherwise, take a step back from ENWP and give a different Wikimedia wiki a try.Ahri Boy (talk)01:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that if your partial block from article space is replaced with aWP:CT/SA topic ban, while you would no longer be restricted from editing most of the rest of Wikipedia, you would not be able to edit anything in theWP:CT/SA topic area (including after getting extended confirmed rights and no edit requests) until an administrator or the community feels comfortable with lifting that topic ban.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something constructive to add, you can participate, but otherwise, there's nothing you need to do; what happens will depend on what the consensus in the discussion turns out to be.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)16:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery The reason I'm in favor of a topic ban if the partial unblock is lifted because I think that "Don't edit on this topic, period" will be much easier for this editor to understand than "Don't directly edit on this topic, but instead make an edit request with the conditions that they are in X-->Y format and are uncontroversial, the last word being defined by this detailed list on another page." I don't want an editor to be unblocked with conditions they are unlikely to meaningfully comprehend, and then just end up right back here again.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)22:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblocking. A topic ban fromWP:CT/SA is a nullity; as a non-extendedconfirmed user they are already topic banned from South Asia. We've ended up with a block here because they've proven they can't be trusted to abide by socially-enforced restrictions so we had to resort to techncically-enforced ones. I see no evidence that trust has been regained.* Pppery *it has begun...17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: while I don't think this will make any difference to your response just a note that being non EC just means they're almost topic banned from Indian military history and South Asian social groups, and any subtopic in the SA CT that admins may extend ECR to. I say almost since at noted above, ECR means they're still allowed to make non disruptive edit requests but a topic ban won't.Nil Einne (talk)07:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock and support implementation of a topic ban fromWP:CT/SA if not shift to sitewide Nothing here shows they understand any of the underlying issues, nor that they will comply. since a topic ban won't stop them from making the edits they don't understand they're not allowed to make and violations will result in blocks, it may be simpler to block now, unfortunately.StarMississippi17:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock, no other actions. The block was to encourage the user to make edit requests on talk pages, which is what they should have been doing in the first place. They have made exactly 0 edit requests. Just do some of those! Once there's a decent enough history of accepted edit requests, I think an unblock would be a very easy call.Tessaract2Hi!18:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have some accepted edit requests. Ireally want to support an unblock but we've got multiple violations of ECR after so many warnings, two previous blocks, copyvio & multiple reversions in their edit history.
Several editors explained things very simply and clearly, so it's worrying that they didn't follow any of it and are on their third block for the same issue in as many months. What's different now to the previous blocks & warnings? They've said before that they understand the restriction[19][20] but we can see now that they didn't. I don't know how much clearer we could have been, especially inthis November post.
I really want to see some accepted edit requests to demonstrate understanding of both ECR and Wikipedia policies in general before considering an unblock.
I hope that they can become a great editor if they can just show us that they both understand and can adhere to our policies via edit requests first. If they can do this, I'd be happy to support a future appeal.Blue Sonnet (talk)01:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying you won't edit about history, except that's not what therestriction is about - have you read through it yet?
That's why I'm suggesting that you start with edit requests first, to show you understand what the restriction is and can work within that restriction.Blue Sonnet (talk)04:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to community siteban - The history here and the responce above leads toone conclusion, and issuing a South Asia topic-ban of any length or condition is just going to see them going back to AE or here and getting summarily (1yr+)indef-blocked. There's no point debating whether or not to lift the partial block; the debate should only be on whether or not to escalate it to a sitewide one. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques08:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock user as not made a compelling unblock request. They have not even demonstrated a clear understanding of why they were blockedCzarking0 (talk)06:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OnDenis Kapustin (militant), therewas a discussion titled "Nazi views are not proved", which contained an exchange regarding the neo-Nazi label in the article lede.
In a month from then, Turbocreates a new topic and tells the user involved in that discussion that the change of the label to "far-right" was "without any kind of discussion".
In fairness, Turbo may have missed the original discussion despite its relevant title, but the instances below involve Turbo's engagement.
Me and Helpful Cattelling Turbo that MANDY is merely an essay. I quote from the WP definition of self-published sources and explain that reliable sources like Al Jazeera don't count as self-published. Turbo replies to that.
Turborefers to MANDY again just days later and alsomisuses a self-published sources guideline in the context of PBS News.
Turbowas told by Helpful Cat that "Kapustin claims that he is not neo-Nazi". Turbo indicated having read the comment byreplying "As I said, whitewashing".
Turboremoves the part on Kapustin denying being a neo-Nazi and white supremacist, says "He never denied being a nazi, that's more WP:OR" in the edit summary.
On the same talk page, Turbosays Azov should be described as "far right" and immediately suggests creating an RFC. Helpful Cat mentions an RFC on the same topic previously launched by Turbo and that the conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right. Turbo launches a new RFC about the same subject but in a different article. As before, the RFC's conclusion was not to describe Azov as far-right.
Other instances of Turbo misusing or going against the guidelines:
TurbomisusingWP:PROMO to dismiss a quote sourced to PBS rather than anything associated with Kapustin.
Turbosays "I don't think attribution is necessary" after I've linked the full guideline andexplicitly pointed out thatWP:CONTENTIOUS instructs to use in-text attribution. Since Turbo's comment, they haveedited the article to re-introduce the contentious label without attribution, which by my count was their third edit or revert to that effect despite there being no agreement on Talk andNPOVN (edit 1,edit 2).
Other issues related to the subject:
Turbo being uncivil byreplying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".
Asthis comment shows, there are 14 sources that call Kapustin a "neo-nazi", including this:Researcher of far-right movements Robert Claus described Kapustin as a key figure among right-wing extremists in Europe and one of the continent’s most dangerous neo-Nazis. On the other hand there is 1 source calling him an "extremist", 1 calling him "extreme right-wing", 2 calling him "far right" and 1 calling him a "nationalist". Daisy Blue wishes to add the {{POV statement}} template without providing any evidence that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed in RS. Yes, Kapustin denies being a neo-nazi, but he would, wouldn't he?WP:CONTENTIOUS also states that these sorts of labels "may express contentious opinion and are best avoidedunless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". As I have shown, the label is widely used to describe Kapustin. The guy was alsobanned from all of EU/Schengen area for being a neo-nazi. So yes, I do consider removing the "neo-nazi" label or inserting tags to suggest the label is non-neutral as whitewashing of neo-nazis. I would also like to note that regarding Kapustin's denial of antisemitism Iwrote"Other editors agree with you, so it should be included. I'm not going to object or revert any more." So I am more than happy to recognise consensus and admit when it is against me. Those who wish to show that the "neo-nazi" label is disputed are welcome to provide RS that dispute it, which they haven't done. The label is used as recently as 2 January 2026 byRadio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, for example.TurboSuperA+[talk]16:45, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you quote WP:CONTENTIOUS, whetheron NPOVN or here just now, you omit the last part saying "in which case use in-text attribution", and it seems that no amount of emphasis by others, whether by me orby Helpful Cat, changes your mind. Giving in after a lot of pushback, as with the RFCs or regarding Kapustin's comments on antisemitism, does not take away from how burdensome the process becomes for the community.Daisy Blue (talk)17:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"in which case use in-text attribution"
So why didn't you? All you did was add a {{POV statement}} tag[21] to the label. Another editor changed the label to "far right"[22]. These are attempts to remove/change the label, not attribute it.TurboSuperA+[talk]18:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it. In fact, it goes even further and says"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Besides, my writing in the main space is hit or miss, being very dependent on the mood. I probably do more copy editing, sourcing and cleanup tasks than I do writing. Lastly, the way WP:CONTENTIOUS is written is that it's an either/or type instruction: avoid the label or attribute it in-text if widely sourced.Daisy Blue (talk)18:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN says it's on the editor introducing content to back it.
I didn't introduce the content. The label has been there since it was created on 23 May 2023[23]. So it is you who wishes to change long-standing content. You also moved the goalpost from "the label should be attributed" to "you need to defend the label". So which is it?
Turbo being uncivil by replying to a user's argument with "Oh fuck off".
Why didn't you say what the user's argument was? The user asked whether Kapustin should be described as a neo-nazi or antifascist[24]. After my "oh fuck off" comment, the user then doubled down and said that Kapustin is a "de facto antifascist"[25]. I find the idea of labeling a neo-nazi an "antifascist" absolutely abhorrent.
Turbo telling the same user "You're not fooling me. I know what you are doing."
Then I wonder what "you are doing" when you selectively use guidelines depending on what the situation is and what content it concerns. You accused me of being aWP:TENDENTIOUS editor, so you know what this entails, can you see how perhaps the way you conduct yourself make people see some of those signs in you, or is it just everyone else is wrong or whitewashing Nazis?
For example, foreign personnel being recruited into the Russian military, you took massive issue with this on theRussian Armed Forces, with arguments to keep this information out of the article ranging fromWP:OR about them being"mercenaries" or "private military" rather than actually enlisted, despite the sources provided clearly stating they were directly going into the Russian military, tofalsely claiming said sources contradict each other when it comes to the nature of how Russia goes about obtaining such recruits.
This is not the only time either, since you removed content regarding Russian efforts to conceal North Korean military presence under the explanation"removed allegation that has no evidence", despite the evidence being named in the sources.
That's two blatant examples I can think of, I think it's clear that TurboSuperA+ is more than capable of editing productively if they wish, but there is a clear issue inWP:CT/EE, specifically when it comes to Russia and Ukraine.TylerBurden (talk)18:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"removed allegation that has no evidence",
At the time it didn't really. It was a contentious issue. I also recall that after seeing evidence of it, I agreed that the North Korean soldiers were in Kursk, and even told an editor who wished to remove it that it should stay. So you're saying disagreeing and then changing my mind is bad?TurboSuperA+[talk]18:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is mostly a content dispute, and it should be resolved at article talk page or NPOVNB. I am not en expert, but simply checkedmost recent news sources and believe that Turbo was wrong[27],[28].My very best wishes (talk)02:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The conversation was closed before I could say anything, but in response to a comment I made on the last ANI, they responded by quoting the first line of my comment and sayingThere it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but..." I don't particularly like the insinuation that I'm a Nazi defender (I do think think the Nazis were cartoonishly evil in the worst way, I believe the full text of my comment illustrates that), and it seems TurboSuperA+ is really fast to frame editors as such. I was going to drop it, and don't want any sanctions against them, but do think atrout is appropriate and that they should cool down the rhetoric a bit.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)02:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to this than a normal content dispute. I suspect that the actual issue is that one side wants to use language that supports a Russian perspective (Kapustin is just another Ukrainian Nazi) while the other wants to present Kapustin as a hero (which, from Ukraine's point of view, he is).Johnuniq (talk)02:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one denied that the subject has a reputation as aRussian neo-Nazi or far-right, which is basically the same. The discussion was about wording, and it could be easily resolved on the article talk page. Perhaps it is already resolved. Can the subject still be viewed as a hero by some people because he fights against the aggressors? Yes, sure. Should he be defined as a "hero" in the lead? No, of course not, and no one suggested it.My very best wishes (talk)13:59, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your point is taken. All neo-Nazi are far-right. Some RS call the subject far-right, others call him neo-Nazi. OK. Then, thinking logically, "far-right" would cover the entire spectrum of opinions in the RS and would be the way to go in his BLP article. That is what I suggested, especially when other people are arguing to infinity about his political views[29].My very best wishes (talk)23:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there is serious contention about them not being a neo-Nazi, then yes "far-right" may be the way to go. It would really depend though on how many call them a neo-Nazi and if there is sourcing that state that they aren't.
For example, an article I brought to GAThomas Sewell (neo-Nazi), sources usually use neo-Nazi and sometimes far-right; however, I've not seen anything credible which contends that they aren't a neo-Nazi and there is video footage of him reading from Mein Kampf, so clearly there is no problem with stating that they are a neo-Nazi in wikivoice.TarnishedPathtalk23:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent example. No doubts, you handled the page about Thomas Sewell correctly. He was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different. Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022. Then, be became well known as a commander of his military unit fighting on the Ukrainian side. This is reflected in the first version of his page[30] created only in 2023 when he became notable. Sure, his right-wing activities before this time were also covered in sources, some of them published earlier. Not only he is a controversial figure, but he was made such on purpose by the Ukrainian intelligence and personallyKyrylo Budanov to embarrass Russians ("The whole enterprise is a pet project of Kyrylo Budanov, the head of HUR."https://www.politico.eu/article/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-ukraine-war/]). Which has been criticized as helping Russian propaganda (same source). Budanov himself is a hugely controversial figure, but I would leave this for another thread.My very best wishes (talk)03:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[Thomas Sewell] was well-known specifically for organizing the neo-Nazi movement. The story of Kapustin was different.
@TarnishedPathThis is simply not true and no matter how many times MVBW repeats it it will not make it true. Here isan article fromDer Spiegel from2019:White Rex founder Nikitin has made a significant contribution to professionalizing the neo-Nazi martial arts scene, according to the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of the Interior. He wasbanned in2019 from the EU for hisneo-nazi activities:According to the German authorities, Moscow-born Kapustin was banned because of his efforts against the liberal democratic constitution. The 34-year-old neo-Nazi, who grew up... There is anAl Jazeera article from2020:...Ukraine-based Russian neo-Nazi Denis Kapustin, a longtime organiser of far-right combat sports events,... Here isan article from2017:Denis Nikitin, a supporter of the extreme right from Moscow and the founder of the Neo-Nazi martial arts brand White Rex., Nikitin is both neo-Nazi and businessman. He is also discussed in two articles in2018,ProPublicaThe Guardian. There isan article from2021 that discusses him, his brand and his activities at length and in depth:Kapustin has also played a substantial role in the formation of a transnational white nationalist identity... The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Al Jazeera, these are all mainstream news sources.
@My very best wishes So to say that "Few people knew he existed before the beginning of the Russian invasion in 2022" is simplynot true and I don't know why you keep repeating it when these links are all in the source table, which you first ignored by sayingSorry, I do not have time[31], but then you lateredited the article's the lede to say that Kapustin is a "former neo-nazi". Then you saidI have provided some input and leaving this to you guys.[32] And now you're backarguijng the same thing. It seems when you wish to ignore something you "don't have time", but then suddenly find time when it comes to making unsupported changes to the article and repeating yourself in order to push a change you want.TurboSuperA+[talk]06:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were publications about him. That is what I said ("some of them published earlier"). But was he notable before the war by WP standards? No one trying to create a page about him is an indication that he was not. Was he mentioned on any other pages before the war? Would an article about him survive an AfD if it were created before the war? I doubt, but do we not know really. More importantly, I commented only on the content here and elsewhere, while you replied by commenting on multiple contributors and distorting what they say and do in the process. For example, no, I did not make unsupported changes in the article. The change was supported by the reference you found, and it was explained at the talk[33]. Same with your recent filings of poorly substantiated complaints on AE and ANI.My very best wishes (talk)13:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, Sewell and Kapustin are two different people, and they are described differently in RS. I can refer to the same article inPolitico as above[34]. It is entitled: "Ukraine embraces far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ to take the battle to Putin". This is not about the wording ("far-right" or "neo-Nazi"). More importantly, the source sayswhat Kapustin is known for. Briefly, he is known for being a far-right Russian ‘bad guy’ embraced by Uikrine "to take the battle to Putin", as this RS and almost all other RS say. This is why I suggested some changes in the lead.My very best wishes (talk)05:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not to promote a false balance, but if we have sources for both of these perspectives then we can and should include both, and any others that exist, using neutral language that clearly indicates the opinions are of the sources.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)02:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about people's motives, but the article has never hinted at presenting Kapustin as a hero. Turboframed it that way on NPOVN ("It'd be nice to have some more eyes on the article, lest on Wikipedia he becomes a progressive fighter for equality and human rights") and by saying "whitewashing" on Talk, but at the time ofTurbo's edit re-introducing the neo-Nazi label, the article already had the following parts, at least one of themintroduced by me in the month between Turbo's edits:
Radicalized by his involvement in German hooliganism, he participated in hooligan fights and attacks on minority groups
Kapustin launched his own clothing brand, White Rex, which featured violent, white nationalist, and xenophobic elements. He wanted the brand to be a National Socialist complete outfitter.
In Switzerland, Kapustin provided combat training to members of the far-right Swiss Nationalist Party (PNOS). He also gave training to members of National Action, a British neo-Nazi group banned by the U.K. government
Germany also issued him an entry ban into the Schengen Area for "efforts against the liberal democratic constitution" and organising neo-Nazi martial arts events.
The interior ministry of Herbert Reul in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, called Kapustin "one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists" in Germany, and noted that he professionalized the fighting subculture in the country.
I have just outlined what I think is the core issue.
And I am saying that your outline is inaccurate. You incorrectly call Kapustin a Ukrainian, when he is in fact a Russian national. MVBW makes the same mistake:I think the issues about the alleged Ukrainian neo-Nazi fighting against Russia should be presented very carefully in WP.[35] This makes me think that you haven't looked closely at the facts of the dispute. Another fact is that the "neo-nazi" label has been in the lede since the article was created on 23 May 2023, so theWP:ONUS is on those wishing to change long-standing content to present sources to back their claims up. Thirdly, noWP:RS actually denies Kapustin is a neo-nazi, they only relate and attributehis own denial, i.e.Kapustin admitted he was right-wing but disputed the "neo-Nazi" label.[36] Since when does a BLP subject's own denial trump tens of secondary, reliable sources? Not only that, but he was caught in a lie, in his denial he continues"you will never find me raising my hand in a Hitler sign." (ibid.) But the PBS article on him saysYet, at this White Rex MMA event from 2013, we see Denis in the white T-shirt cheering "Russians, go forward," with the crowd,some of whom are throwing Nazi salutes, which he then appears to mirror back.[37]TurboSuperA+[talk]08:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daisy Blue; the article has never portrayed Kapustin as a hero. This is also a longstanding behavioural issue that has affected manyWP:RUSUKR articles beyond this one.Helpful Cat {talk}11:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MANDY, they acknowledged and responded to that in your second link:Just becauseWP:MANDY is an essay that doesn't make what it says any less correct. I don't think there's any issue with referring to an essay even if it's not policy, they were not saying it must be followed.
Regarding the RFC, Turbo felt it was different (the last RfC was about the current status of Azov, while this discussion is about how we should refer to them for the period when Kapustin was associated with them.) and Helpful Cat respondedFeel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive. Nothing wrong with starting a new RFC after that exchange.
In my own experience, I have had probably six or seven interactions with Turbo. I think we initially disagreed on all but a couple, but I don't think they have failed to "get the point", and indeed, in at least one instance I recall, they changed their mind (as also noted above on a couple different issues).
I do think Turbo can come off as hostile sometimes; that is what I felt on my first engagement with them months ago, and theoh **** off,There it is, folks: "Nazis were bad, but...", etc. mentioned above are not helpful. But I agree with GeogSage that it's not sanction-worthy at this point.LordCollaboration (talk)15:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was against TSA+ opening the second Azov RFC because I did not feel it was meaningfully different from the first one, and indeed, their actual arguments in the second RFC were not specific to 2017-2019 but were mostly about relitigating the description of Azov in general. I saidFeel free to start a new RFC if you feel that that is necessary and constructive because they obviously wouldn't agree with me that the RFC was unnecessary, and I can't stop them or any user from doing anything no matter how unconstructive I think it is, not because I was endorsing the RFC.Helpful Cat {talk}18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I concur that TurboSuperA+ has a pattern of disruptive,WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour and POV-pushing long before this latest issue, particularly in theWP:RUSUKR topic area. I want to be clear that my post has nothing to do with the current dispute about the lead of the Kapustin article, nor any attempt to whitewash Kapustin, which TSA+ is obviously deeply concerned about. I have not objected to the neo-Nazi label, and only raised a question about whetherMOS:CONTENTIOUS requires attribution in the lead (as I've now said on the article's talk page, I'm fine with including it in the lead and attributing it in the body). I havealsoaddedextensivematerial that any reasonable person would agree is negative. Apologies for the long post, where I've compiled evidence across months.
Misrepresentation and failure to read. TSA+ often fails to read properly before responding, and misrepresents material - diffs they are presenting as evidence; sources they are interpreting; comments of users they are responding to. While everyone misreads things sometimes, TSA+ does it so often and so conveniently that it unfortunately strains the limits ofWP:AGF. Here are some examples:
I pointed outin my statement that TSA+ had misrepresentedthis diff: TSA+ wrongly said that TylerBurden hadremoved sourced content...because it wasseemingly critical of Ukraine, and changed his mind because another editorexplain[ed] how it is actually debunking Russia's claims. Actually, TylerBurden clearly argued both in his edit summary andthe talk page that disinformation only notable for being debunked is notWP:DUE, andchanged his mind because another user pointed out that the disinformation had been covered beyond being debunked.
When I pointed this out, TSA+ asked for an extension just to respond, butmisrepresented the diff again (see the whole "Regarding Helpful Cat's first point" section), this time wrongly saying that TylerBurden had saidEUvsDisinfo was Russian state propaganda, and changed his mind because he realised it wasn't.
When Ipointed this out again, TSA+ postedanother diff where they objected to TylerBurden citingWP:TASS to remove material cited to...TASS. They did remove this last diff after I pointed this out, but it is alarming that they fail so badly to read the evidence they are presenting that they make three false statements about the same article in a row. Frankly, misrepresenting so much evidence in an attempt to sanction another user is something I would considerWP:BOOMERANG-worthy.
Here Black Kite points out TSA+'s misrepresentation of a diff in their ANI report against My very best wishes.
Here'sanother example where they rushed to condemn TylerBurden before reading their own evidence, causing LordCollaboration to rightly point outAnd you should stop making false accusations against Tyler, please read the diffs first. While TSA+ also retracted this when it was pointed out, this is just textbookWP:NOTENOUGH#What it looks like: - doing the same harmful thing over and over, and apologising when caught each time.
Misrepresentation of sources - and here, I want to note that TSA+ iscapable of reading sources and doing excellent detailed analysis when they want to. They simply choose not to when it doesn't favour their POV, which is very unfortunate. (Update 11:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC): Daisy Blue haspointed out that TSA+'s analysis included some non-RSes, which TSA+ has now removed. Daisy Blue also pointed out that some parts of the analysis areWP:HEADLINES, and I'm unsure if those have been removed. Although there were issues in the analysis, this comprehensive table still shows that TSA+ is able to read and engage with the wording of sources in a way that they didn't apply in the examples in this section.)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Dispute at Russian Armed Forces - I postnumerous sources with quotes showing coercion of foreigners to join the Russian military; TSA+repliesNone of the paragraphs you quoted suggest coercion. Deception, yes, but not coercion. I postmore sources, and TSA+ decides they justdon't believe the sources (more on this below under "bad-faithWP:GAME behaviour in discussions"). This isWP:BFN:An editor withholds agreement to a change unless additional, more satisfactory sources are provided, but declares all the new sourcing to be unsatisfactory despite the citation work clearly fulfilling the core content policies.
Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#Kapustin's thoughts on antisemitism - in aPBS interview, Kapustin said:I spoke a lot with the guys who seem to share the same ideology as I do from United States, and they have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything. I don't understand that thing. I have -- I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity. Iincluded this (along with numerous clearly negative details) asHe has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology.
TSA+removes it and goes into a bout ofWP:SEALIONING andWP:GASLIGHTING (prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim) to deny that when Kapustin says he doesn't understand why American extremists are obsessed with Jews and think they control everything, he is saying he doesn't understand their focus on antisemitism. Theyeven say it isWP:OR to equate "obsessively thinking Jews control everything" with antisemitism! Note: the interviewer responded to Kapustin's statement withWhether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants, particularly Muslims, so clearly the source itself immediately links Kapustin's statement to antisemitism (noWP:SYNTH).
Since TSA+insists that the distinction between extremists' focus on antisemitism and on Jews is relevant, I then suggest alternate wording:He has said he does not understand why his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology have an "obsession" with Jews and believe "Jews control everything". TSA+wrongly claims that the PBS interview isself-published, andremoves my alternate wording with the edit summaryJust as irrelevant now as it was yesterday. It's only when multiple editors jump in to agree that Kapustin's stated views on antisemitism are relevant that TSA+ has no choice but to give in. But as Daisy Blue pointed out, TSA+ dragging the community through repetitive, pointless discussions is still disruptive even if they are ultimately forced to relent.
Misrepresentation of other users' comments: unfortunately, TSA+ often puts words in people's mouths and rebuts points nobody was making.
First Azov RFC - I am clear in all my comments that my stance is not to describe the Azov Brigade as currently far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree on whether it is, making it aseriously contested assertion that should not be presented as fact perWP:VOICE (and this was also explained in the closing statement). TSA+creates a strawman that I am trying to claim in wikivoice that it isnot far-right:While there is a brigade that does the fighting and a movement that does the PR, to claim that they are completely separate ideologically or that there is no coordination between the two would require consensus among WP:RS that this is the case. When Ipoint out that I am not claiming this,TSA+ justdoesn't hear it (The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break.), and misrepresents me again:You are however against mentioning the movement in the first paragraph and against labeling the brigade as far-right, which pretty much amounts to the same thing - Iwanted to mention the far-right accusations in the second paragraph of the lead; how is that at all the same as saying the brigade is not far-right in wikivoice?
ANI thread after the first Azov RFC - Chicdat also points out this tendency of TSA+ here:TurboSuperA+ commented almost 30 times, continually bludgeoning while misrepresenting other editors' words. FOARP was even driven to using bold, italic, underlined, asterisked text to emphasize their viewpoint after this. - that seems to refer tothis comment. This is also an example of TSA+ misunderstanding other editors in ways that strain credibility: FOARP clarifies their stance by sayingI said absolute nothing of the kind. I have consistently oppose the inclusion of "supporters" in any form: I do not want*ANY* country listed as a supporter in the infobox. Is that clear enough for you?, and TSA+ repliesWhy is it your decision?WP:OWN. edit: wrong policy, it is more likeWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
NPOV/N thread about foreign personnel in the Russian Armed Forces - TSA+creates a strawman that I am saying the Russian military is in India:The sources do not say it is the Russian military in India who are coercing people to go. andThe Russian militaty doesn't have its own recruiters in India actively forcing them to go to Russia. Nothing about the text that I proposed (Media has reported that to increase manpower amid casualties in the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Russian Armed Forces has increasingly turned to foreign recruits...) required that, nor did I ever suggest it. This is also a disingenuous way to move the goalposts by claiming that in order for Russia to recruit foreign personnel, the Russian military must physically go to that country and conscript people.
WP:IDHT behaviour in discussions. It happens often that TSA+ raises an objection, someone addresses it, and TSA+simply repeats the same point or asks the same question over and over rather than actually responding to the rebuttal. This is alsoWP:GAME (pretending your question has not already been answered), andWP:SEALION (ignoring the substance of previous replies in order to raise yet another question, and prevent the discussion from reaching a reasonable conclusion).
TSA+argues that their second Azov RFC is different from their first one because the new one is about whether the Azov Brigade was far-right in 2017-2019, when Kapustin was associated with it. Iexplicitly address this in my comment, saying that the conclusion from the first RFC (that we cannot call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice because RSes disagree) also applies to 2017-2019, as there are multiple RSes arguing that the unit's deradicalisation had started by 2017. TSA+ then simplyrepeats themselves:And lastly, we are talking about the time period when Kapustin ran the fight club for Azov, the period before the war, 2018-2019. So if Azov is not far-right now (doubtful) doesn't mean that it wasn't back in 2018-2019.
Isuggest changing the wording from "Battalion" to "movement" because sources don't describe him joining the Azov military unit, but do describe him doing political activities such as attending conferences and working with theNational Corps. I explicitly point out that theJournal for Illiberalism Studies source that was cited at the time to support the "Battalion" wording is dependent onthis RFE/RL article it cites, which describes his political activities, but not military ones. TSA+responds by citing the Journal for Illiberalism Studies article again.
Another example onTalk:Denis Kapustin (militant): I had just significantly expanded the "political views" section withthis addition, which includes many of Kapustin's own statements, and is clearly unflattering to Kapustin. Iexplained why the "political views" section should include Kapustin's own statements as well as secondary sources (as every "political views" section or article does!), because Kapustin's statements provide detail on his specific views. I added that if TSA+ finds secondary sources evaluating his views that are currently missing, they should add them to the article. Two hours later, TSA+asksWhy should so much space be given to his own descriptions of himself?
Many of the examples of TSA+ doing this are covered under my other points, but theWP:NPOV/N discussion on foreign personnel in the Russian military is particularly egregious. Isuggested wording (well-supported by sources) describing a spectrum of cases, saying that some foreign fighters for Russia agreed to join the military but thought they would be in non-combat roles, while others say they were promised civilian employment (or were tourists or students), but were forced to join the military after arriving in Russia. TSA+agrees to that wording.
But just 14 hours later, they suddenlychange their mind and insist that there was no coercion at all, despiteextensive sourcing and the fact that TSA+ hadalready agreed that at least some soldiers were coerced. (By the way, theirWP:OR argument for why they don't believe all the RSes saying there was coercion isapparently that if human trafficking victims receive any healthcare or manage to contact the press, they are no longer human trafficking victims)
They also strangelydispute that recruiters getting people into the Russian military are connected to the Russian military (Nothing suggesting these recruiters are part of the Russian military.), and thenclaim three hours later that they never disputed Russian involvement:"It's good that you have at least stopped disputing Russian involvement." I have never disputed it. Someone who does two U-turns in one discussion just to continue arguing, and who attempts toWP:GASLIGHT people about what they said three hours ago, clearly does not intend to engage in good-faith discussion.
Bludgeoning of RFCs and other discussions - they frequently reply to users who disagree with them, not with any actually relevant rebuttals or responses, but simply to restate their own stance ad nauseam. LordCollaboration points this outhere:You have also now responded six separate times in this section, not including your own !vote. I think you've made your position clear. Slatersteven alsopointed this out in the first Azov RFC:So this WILL be my last word, I have explained my thoughts and you need to let others have their say without you correcting them.
Here, Isuggested writing that Kapustin worked with the Azov movement rather than the "Battalion". TSA+replied:In 2020, Christopher Miller called the leader of AzovMovement a "neo-nazi". (emphasis mine) andFurthermore, links between Kapustin and his Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK) do not end in 2019 (who ever said Kapustin left the RDK? What does that have to do with this RFC, which is apparently about the description of Azov from 2017 to 2019? In fact, he founded theRussian Volunteer Corps in 2022, so how could he have left it in 2019?) Here, TSA+ was so intent on bludgeoning that they said things that made no sense, simply to have the last word.
WP:RGW andWP:ASPERSIONS. They have been so fixated on not whitewashing Kapustin that they accuse anyone of whitewashing who doesn't write exactly what they would have written in the article. Here theysuggested that I was whitewashing Kapustin forthis clearly negative diff because I didn't go out of my way to repeat the word "neo-Nazi", which was already used multiple times in the article, or because I didn't add every single piece of information that exists out there in one go. Notice thatI later added a source that described Kapustin's specific neo-Nazi views in more detailwhen I found it. Rather than finding sources themselves and constructively adding anything they think is missing, theyfound ways to keep complaining about what I wrote byselectively quoting the source - when I pointed out the misinterpretation, theycomplained again that that sentence is "whitewashing" even though I never even tried to include that sentence in the article.
AdvancingWP:FRINGE theories.Heretheyclaim that a subject matter expert's statement that the2024 Russian presidential election was fraudulent and significantly exaggerated Russians' true support for Putin (with that expert's estimate of their true level of support), and that the Russian government is a repressive authoritarian regime - statements very well-documented by RSes across all our relevant articles - is somehow anWP:EXTRAORDINARY claim.
WP:FORUMSHOPPING by starting two RFCs about almost exactly the same topic within 7 months, first on theAzov Brigade article itself - where there wasconsensus not to call the Azov Brigade far-right in wikivoice - and then on the article of someone associated with Azov, to include the "far-right" label in wikivoice there instead. There was againconsensus not to do this, and the closing statement explicitly noted thatAs has been pointed out, there is no benefit in independently relitigating the descriptor for the Azov Brigade, Battalion or movement in the article of every person affiliated therewith. When I made that same point,pointed out the existence of the previous RFC and argued that we should follow its consensus, TSA+said:You constantly trying to imply impropriety is not helpful nor constructive. Note that even though TSA+ said the second RFC was different because it was specifically about 2017-2019, none of their arguments were specifically about that time period, and were instead focused on relitigating the description of Azov on a tangentially related article.
Personal attacks and incivility. As GeogSage pointed out,TSA+ suggested on ANI that a user unrelated to the dispute was a Nazi sympathiser for making the very reasonable point that we can recognise Soviet atrocities without taking away from Nazi ones.
The pattern of baseless accusations and incivility is unfortunately old. In the first Azov RFC, TSA+ madefalse accusations that I and another user who !voted against their stance had been canvassed to the discussion (this was the subject of my first ANI report). Theyclaimed to have secret evidence,forcing ArbCom to get involved and clarify that there wasno credible evidence that any specific editors were canvassed. TSA+ apologised, but then essentially walked back their apology by misrepresenting ArbCom andfalsely sayingas ArbCom saw, the accusation was not baseless. They then continued that behaviour within the ANI thread itself byquestioning how other editors had found the ANI discussion. Many people commentingagreedthat TSA+ should at least receive a formal warning, while othersproposed a topic ban or even anindef because of their history of other problematic behaviour (which was already well-known then!), but the thread was archived without action, allowing them to continue their disruption to this day. I don't mean to reopen this old incident, which is resolved as far as I'm concerned, but merely to point out that this is a pattern of behaviour that hasn't been stopped.
TSA+'s behaviour exhibits many signs ofWP:GAME -WP:BFN,WP:GASLIGHT - as well asWP:CPUSH (although I would disagree that it's alwayscivil POV-pushing) -When unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research;Using the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times;Misrepresenting other editors or discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions - andWP:SEALION. When I encounter TSA+ in a discussion, I do not know if this is a day when they will be reasonable (which they can be when they are willing - seehere for example, where although their initial report includedWP:FRINGE theories as I described above, they were open to discussion and made and engaged with suggestions, enabling us to reach consensus). I find myself writing endless disclaimers to avoid being misrepresented, and resigning myself to the fact that that no matter how much I try to engage in good faith, write nuanced comments, and make constructive suggestions, it may go to waste because they choose to misrepresent my words, repeat themselves meaninglessly, and refuse to read and engage with anything they don't like.
Sanctions against TSA+ have been repeatedly proposed,most recently here, but TSA+ has always escaped even a formal warning so far (AFAIK) because discussions happened to be archived or closed before anyone could take action. Unfortunately, I think it is time to finally address this pattern and stop the disruption. TSA+once saidIs that the kind of place we want the CTOP to be? You decide. - I agree, and hope they will take these issues to heart.Helpful Cat {talk}17:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of misrepresentation of comments, there was arecent exchange in the context of labels in the lede where Turbo presented my position on analyzing sources as "we mustonly look at the introductory labels in an article" (emphasis mine), even though my sources summary rework draftintroduced a planned Other description(s) column, I suggestedprioritizing introductory labels depending on what other editors think, and relied on four parts of a source article to argue it's improper to distill those to just one label of choice. It's very difficult to engage in discussion when your own arguments get re-framed like this.Daisy Blue (talk)21:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You said (in the diff you linked):if we exclude headlines andgo by the introductory labels of those same sources(emphasis mine). I understood "go by" to mean "only look at", because you thendiscounted all the sources where he wasn't called a neo-nazi in the "introductory label". I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation of "go by", especially when your argument was:To me, the introductory labels are more important because the context of this discussion is the lead section.TurboSuperA+[talk]06:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful Cat outlines a lot that's beyond a content dispute. Given the amount of wall of text here I don't begrudge anyone for not wading into the swamp. Also, shouldn't this have been posted atWP:ANI?Nemov (talk)22:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ridiculous size of @Helpful Cat's comment above (please be more concise!) and the large number of replies by various users, I think the word limits and separate sections of the AE structure could be very helpful here.Toadspike[Talk]02:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I read it, but it wasn't easy, and I may have missed some bits. The word counter shows there are over 3000 words, while AE suggests 500 before extensions. Would you advise that Helpful Cat takes this to AE? I could include a few new diffs to build on some of the raised points as well.Daisy Blue (talk)03:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike the "various users" are all editors with whom I am currently engaged in content disputes. Please see here:Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)#He's a neo-nazi. The topic was started by Daisy Blue who wishes to either remove the "neo-nazi" label from the first sentence or attribute it in the lede. I have pointed Daisy Blue toWP:DR and even suggested they can start an RFC to gain consensus, but in all this time they haven't done so, but keep (frankly) bludgeoning the discussion. This AN report is nothing more than an attempt to bypass the need to build a consensus for their change. I have compiled a source review table here:Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)/Source review. There are literallydozens of sources (including academic ones) where in no uncertain terms they call Denis Kapustin a neo-nazi and outline his neo-nazi activities, for which he was banned from the EU. This topic is titled "misusing policy", but it is Daisy Blue who is ignoring policy and coming up with arguments such as we must look at the "introductory label" in a source and ignore labels the source uses later in the text. This dispute has been going on forweeks.TurboSuperA+[talk]08:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There really should be a limit on the length of replies. The walls of text here are ridiculously and unnecessarily long. Some of us have lives to live.Carlstak (talk)18:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I deny that I have broken the rules. I am permitted to make edits within Wikipedia. If there is a policy prohibiting cross-Wiki edits, please let me know. Furthermore, it would be polite if this were discussed normally, rather than through excessive comments.Harold Foppele (talk)18:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Harold Foppele It doesn't matter whether you use wikiversity:Quantum/ or v:Quantum/, neither is wiktionary: or wikisource:. Any other sister project, other than images from commons, should not be used in-line in article text per the manual of style and perWP:EL (which applies to "links to web pages outside Wikipedia", not just pages outside Wikimedia), and should be in the "External links" section or in an infobox. Are you trying to infer that this is an interlanguage link, not a sister-project link? Because "wikiversity" is not a language.--Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion, it is grossly inappropriate that it should be possible to create a link to what amounts to a fake article on Wikiversity (a clearly unreliable source, for multiple entirely obvious reasons). This is far too likely to deceive a reader into thinking they are reading a Wikipedia article, and if policy doesn't forbid it, policy needs changing.AndyTheGrump (talk)09:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no obligation to answer questions from you (not that it is at all clear where you even asked me one). As for 'bad intentions', you created an article on Wikiversity which is identical in terms of styling and layout to a Wikipedia biography - the only visible difference being a Wikiversity logo replacing the Wikipedia one, something a reader might not be aware the significance of. You posted a link to it in an article in a manner that obscured the fact that it wasn't the internal Wikipedia link that a reader might be expecting. If this wasn't done with the intention to deceive it certainly looks that way. And your attempted rule-mongering above suggests to me that you were intentionally deceptive, in a manner intended to evade your block. This isn't a court of law, and we aren't conducting a criminal trial. Instead, what is being discussed here is whether your behaviour, in light of a block imposed for the good of the project, was appropriate, and if it wasn't, what action needs to be taken. We don't have rules about everything, and nor do we need them when making such decisions.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing yourself no favours whatsoever by attempting to justify what was clearly an attempt to get around your block through gaming the system. It doesn't matter the slightest whether there are specific rules about how you did it,the intent was clear and you can be blocked accordingly.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the purpose there is external links from a Wikipedia page on, say, spherical harmonics, to the Wikiversity page on spherical harmonics. Linking to a subpage about a biographical subject's spouse isn't the intent there.Sesquilinear (talk)23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. This wasblatantly an attempt at gaming the pblock. Now, if when this was observed, Harold Foppele had gone "oh, I didn't realise it would be seen that way", we'd be fine. Heck, if they'd gone "oops, you caught me! I won't do it again", we'd be fine with a{{trout}}ing and moving on. Instead they've chosen to continuallyWikilawyer about it, which indicates theyare entirely aware of what they did, they have no remorse for it, and would in fact do it again. This is entirely unacceptable. I'm tempted to simply indef, but I'm feeling charitable and have blocked for a week in hopes of the message getting across. If it doesn't, the next block won't be as charitable. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As a footnote, the user has since emailed me three times (a) claiming to havesome sort of "records going back to 2014" aboutsomething they want to talk to Arbcom about, and (b) apparently firmly believing that their block means they can't edit their talk page. -The BushrangerOne ping only08:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User ZDRX has deleted forty-one thousand words in the article 'Superpower' on English Wikipedia.
nobody has decided anything as yet. This is still an ongoing content discussion and as already stated there is no admin action necessary.Nthep (talk)13:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the result of a recentmotion, a rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor'sArab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.
I'm posting this here because I'm not sure where else to ask about it. If there's a better noticeboard to discuss something like this, please advise. Could an adminsitrator take a look atMonaturo Gattai Powerkaiser? It looks like someone might be trying to either create a new article or do a page move, but didn't know how to do either the right way. What it looks like they ended up doing instead is basically just copy-paste all of or most of the content ofKyuukyuu Sentai GoGoFive onto a new page. First, they did this on atTalk:Kyuukyuu Sentai GoGoFive (seehere) but then went and created the new page a few minutes later. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this while trying to figure out what they're were asking about atWP:MCQ#File:Powerkaiser Logo.png (apparentlyFile:Powerkaiser Logo.png was tagged by a bot for speedy deletion perWP:F4). I was going to draftify the new page but wasn't sure if that would just create more diffs to cleanup due to the copy-paste move attempt. --Marchjuly (talk)23:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)Marchjuly I tagged it forG3 and will add an explanatory rationale - this would be an implausible redirect and only a few youtube videos turn up when I search for it. It's obviously not what Kyuukyuu Sentai GoGoFive is so that part would be a hoax, I think.HurricaneZetaC00:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed between the editors directly so there is nothing for AN to do currently and this is starting to trend towards unproductive discussion. If the relevant parties cannot come to a mutually-agreeable resolution and need admin assistance then a new thread can be started at that time.Thryduulf (talk)17:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I came across a userpage of an editor recently, and noticed a link to a YouTube video by a Ukrainian brigade. Note the title of the link on WP was misleading. The video contains about a dozen war crimes by the brigade, as neutralizing a soldier trying to surrender is indeed a war crime. I believe this is strongly unacceptable to have on a userpage and should be removed. As perWP:UPNOT, "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia". Furthermore, "advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit" also highlights this. I'm not comfortable naming the person yet, but will if needed. I'm curious, is this a violation ofWP:UP?Alexeyevitch(talk)00:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PingUser:TylerBurden as it's your userpage being discussed here. Claims of war crimes appear to be hyperbole. It's a link to a video compilation of stills of Russian soldiers taken by FPV drones just before impact, so definitely provocative and likely disruptive, especially as it could be alarming and upsetting to view considering the link text of "All is going according to plan" gives no context. I suspectWP:UPNOT applies. "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."Fences&Windows01:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the video a day or two ago; the link doesn't give you any idea of what you're going to be shown, so it was unexpected.
The video consists of stills as you've mentioned - soldiers who are either about to die, are dying/severely wounded or dead.
The worst parts are blurred/pixelated so it's not overly gory, but faces visibly show distress and the video appears to be celebrating the outcome. You can definitely tell what's happening.
At minimum, I'd have preferred the link to include some sort of warning or explanation so you know what to expect. I don't know about whether it contravenes policy, this is just my perspective as someone who watched the video a couple of days ago.Blue Sonnet (talk)13:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)(amended at 13:42)[reply]
I'm not sure there's any evidence of a "war crime" and so starting this post with such an allegation is unacceptable and unhelpful. The video isn't overly graphic but does depict the moments leading to death which some may find confronting. I'm not sure either of the policy statements cited in this initial post are directly relevant, as a single link to a YouTube video is not "substantial content" nor is there evidence of "advocacy or support" for "grossly improper behaviours".AusLondonder (talk)13:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since Alexeyevitch has followed my advice to take this up directly with TB and then seems not interested in pursuing it here, I suggest again that this should be closed.~2026-92659-0 (talk)15:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been an issue with user @Revirvlkodlaku and me regarding the Naanum Rowdy Thaan plot summary. I have polished the details I added down below.
"At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass and they end up stabbing each other to death when Pandi inadvertently steps in front. After being acknowledged by a dying Killi that he is the real rowdy as he managed to escape getting stabbed and that he can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. Despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy."
I believe these details are crucial because it reflects how Pandi stepping in front of Killivallavan and Mansoor reflects how Pandi inadvertently caused their deaths and Killivallavan's last words to Pandi highlights how despite Pandi not killing anyone phyisically, he has finally earned the recognition of being a rowdy just because he was able to escape getting stabbed. I think the detail about Kadhambari wanting Pandi to continuing being a rowdy highlights how Pandi despite his potential to become an even bigger don than Killivallavan chooses to let go of it rather than embrace it like he wanted to in the beginning of the movie.
At first user @Revirvlkodlaku and me got into an argument and the user kept removing these details and I kept adding them back, then we discussed with each other and agreed that details should be added back, but when I added it back, I also added more details on the roles of each characters listed in the cast list and I asked @Revirvlkodlaku whether we can keep it or remove it but the user then removed the entire details I added including the plot details I listed above. I apologized to the user and asked the if I can just add the details I was originally going to add, but the user just rudely told me that I lack English proficiency and kept removing the details I was going to add, without listening to me even @Kailash29792 agreed that these details should be added, but the user @Revirvlkodlaku is not listening to either of us.SlayerRoyce (talk)02:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I gave SlayerRoyce freedom to add whatever he wanted to the plot as long as it was essential to the story (nottrivial), and not exceeding the 700-word limit perWP:FILMPLOT. I also said he could correct potential mistakes, that's it.Kailash29792(talk)02:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792, it did not exceed the 700-world limit per count, it was around 675-699 word limit, and I only added the crucial parts of the story. This is what I was going to add "At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass and they end up stabbing each other to death when Pandi inadvertently steps in front. After being acknowledged by a dying Killi that he is the real rowdy as he managed to escape getting stabbed and that he can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. Despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy."SlayerRoyce (talk)02:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe mentioning that Killi acknowledges Pandi as a rowdy (or thug, or whatever the formal English word is IDK), that alone is worth mentioning. But I felt it is pointless as Pandi gives up the thug life shortly thereafter. Also you wrote, "Killi grabs him as they had planned" is that what happened? Or the other way round? Having seen the film 10 years ago I can't exactly recall.Kailash29792(talk)02:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792, Killi eventually manages to overpower Pandi after Kadhu tells Pandi to let go of Killi claming that someone else will kill him for wrong deeds as she is unable to kill him and Kadhu leaves both Pandi and Killi behind after she tells Pandi this. After she leaves them both, Killi manages to overpower Pandi and throws him to the nearby bathtub and grabs the glass Kadhu tried to kill Killi with and is about to kill Pandi with the same glass only for Mansoor to arrive at the spot with a knife.SlayerRoyce (talk)03:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as a heads up, I have subscribed to this thread. You don't have to worry about pinging me now. (Though I am not an admin, so there isn't probably much else for me to discuss.) --Super Goku V (talk)08:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this sounds like a content dispute that the three of you will eventually end up needing to figure out. For now, your complaint here seems to be that Revirvlkodlaku is apparently ignoring both of you, so that likely should be resolved first.
I don't know what exactly you mean by "add you to the talk page," but I do know where you are talking about when you say an article's talk page.
However, that isn't the notification that is being talked about. There is a red box at the top of this page that says:"When you start a discussion about an editor, youmust leave a notice on theirtalk page.Pinging isnot enough." (Emphasis reduced) That is the notice we are talking about. --Super Goku V (talk)08:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of it, but did you find the red box above that I was talking about? That was the notice that needed to be posted on the user's talk page. --Super Goku V (talk)08:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Feel free not to worry about it too much as I decided to take care of the notification. Though, am I correct in assuming that the only action you want is for your edit to be partly or fully restored? --Super Goku V (talk)08:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That can be discussed at the talk page. But for here, if you are not asking for any action to be taken, then I don't see much of a point for posting here. Is it okay if youwithdraw this discussion? (Assuming that Kailash29792 or Revirvlkodlaku do not intend to continue this for any admin actions.) --Super Goku V (talk)09:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on that at Talk:Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. I just felt that if you didn't need admin actions, then this could be closed and the discussion continued at that talk page. --Super Goku V (talk)09:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V, this is the part I was going to add: At this juncture, Mansoor armed with a knife finds Killi about to kill Pandi with a glass, and they end up stabbing each other to death. Pandi falsely takes credit for their deaths to impress Kadhu after being acknowledged by the dying Killi that he is the real rowdy and can do whatever he wants for the girl's sake. despite Kadhu still wanting him to be a rowdy.SlayerRoyce (talk)09:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I think you may have intended this forWP:ANI rather than here. Secondly, was there any effort to discuss this at the article's Talk page or pursue other forms ofdispute resolution (your opening statement is somewhat lacking in detail and bereft ofdiffs)? If this was your first step, it seems like a pretty steep escalation. Lastly, you did not notify Revirvlkodlaku of this discussion as you are required to do per the instructions at the top of this page.DonIago (talk)07:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Super Goku V, I don't care that much now. Let SlayerRoyce add whatever he wants as long as the plot remains within 700 words and has only essential details. I also believe the movie is still fresh in his mind that he can recall plot details correctly.Revirvlkodlaku, the article is still atGOCE, they'll decide what to keep/delete during copyediting. Thank you for your comments, with that I'm off now.Kailash29792(talk)08:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SlayerRoyce, for the love of whatever god(s) you believe in, stop tag-bombing me!!! I've received ten notifications within the span of five minutes, all from you, with multiple instances in a single comment! Your behaviour is grossly inappropriate and disrespectful, and I reiterate what I said earlier: I have no intention of dealing with someone with your level of immaturity. If you tag me once more, I will report you for abusive behaviour!Revirvlkodlaku (talk)09:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would not remove your need to specifically notify Revirvlkodlaku ofthis discussion on their Talk page as per the instructions at the top of this page, unless you're saying you did do so and they deleted the notification. However, as they've now contributed to this conversation, they're clearly aware of it.DonIago (talk)13:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The quick answer without diffs? Revirvlkodlaku got annoyed with SlayerRoyce more than once on the article talk page and threatened to take SlayerRoyce to AN. Somehow, SlayerRoyce thought it was a good idea to instead take Revirvlkodlaku here, but apparently doesn't want any action other than their edits restored to Naanum Rowdy Dhaan. (It doesn't seem like SlayerRoyce understood my suggestion to withdraw this earlier, despite not wanting any admin action.) --Super Goku V (talk)10:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Revirvlkodlaku was adamant on not adding my edits, the user said that they would later report me to the admin, thats why I brought the user hereSlayerRoyce (talk)10:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(I've not notified the user in question of this report, since I'm not reporting them, I'm just asking a protocol question.)
A user who was just blocked for repeated CTOP violations managed to create before their block two articles in violation ofWP:CT/A-A, both of which are still live:Azerbaijani-Georgian War andBattle of Vorontsovka (Ithink the latter comes under A-A, but not 100% sure). What do we do in such cases – delete, draftify, or just leave there for NPP to run the ruler over them? I've not looked at either one in detail, so don't know if they could potentially be keepers, in case that's a factor here. --DoubleGrazing (talk)08:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm pretty sure they can be speedy deleted underG5, although they don't necessarilyhave to be, sinceWP:ECR notes that...administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.Chess enjoyer (talk)09:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are parallels to articles (or content in general) created by ban and block evading actors. It's interesting to ask - to what extent does the retention of content created in violation of a rule reward and incentivize rule breaking? As far as I can tell, the community is not interested in this question. In practice, the retention of content appears to depend on the content itself, not on its provenance.Sean.hoyland (talk)10:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user in question started making non-constructive edits to thePirate Party of Greece article, inserting his own conjecture as fact and even adding personal attacks against me in his explanation for some edits.User:PhilKnight ended up having to place the article under full protection until February 26. Two days ago, he escalated toa personal attack on the article's Talk page. As additional context, He has been indefinitely blocked from the Greek-language Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior. I request assistance.Odysseus Giacosa (talk)16:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I am surprised at this proposal. As you can see, I make edits that rely exclusively on verifiable, reliable sources and explain what I'm doing - regardless of which article I'm editing. Furthermore, I haven't resorted to personal attacks. At any rate, I came here for assistance. Of course, it's not up to me to decide what will be done. I'm leaving it up to admins and will not involve myself anymore in this discussion.Odysseus Giacosa (talk)01:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a few weeks old and didn't continue, but youdid participate fully in a small edit war in your 1/20-1/26 edits on this page, and escalated the situation by mischaracterizing disputed content asWP:VANDALISM in your edit summary. The bar for vandalism is much higher than simply making poor edits or unsourced edits.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)08:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit to the mischaracterization - after all, I'm not a particularly experienced editor and perhaps my understanding of what constitutes vandalism is not as good. While my account is relatively old, my editing history has been sporadic, with long periods of inactivity. As to the edit war, you described it correctly as small; seeing that the situation was on the verge of getting close to becoming a full-scale edit war, I stopped and asked for guidance. Furthermore, what about the edits that inserted personal assessments? Or the personal attacks?Odysseus Giacosa (talk)10:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, I apologize for any part of my conduct that was unhelpful in any way. I simply want to contribute, as best I can, by improving articles within my areas of knowledge and interest.Odysseus Giacosa (talk)13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I won't partially block the editors unless there is an edit war again. If the editors have learned not to edit war, then my intervention won't be needed.PhilKnight (talk)15:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've noticed this before, but I'm noticing again thatUser:Cyberbot I/Requests for unblock report isnot showing all of the active requests for unblock. For instance,User talk:RakowskiC has an active unblock request, but it isn't on there; in fact itwas previously on there, but "fell off" at some point. I wondered in the past if somehow other people editing it was making that happen, but it seems to have happenedall on its own instead. AlsoUser talk:Tech Bytez also has an active unblock request, but it "fell off"even earlier, without having been edited fordays. Given this can clearly lead to unblock requests going unaddressed for the simple reason of nobody knowing they still exist, this seems to be a problem. -The BushrangerOne ping only01:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because I want to leave Wikipedia. I want my name to be removed from this platform. Also I haven't removed any closed discussions. The ones I removed aren't closed.Anonymy365248 (talk)03:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, but they kept rejecting it all because it looked like an IP address, even if it's not. There are other users with those usernames and were able to reply comments on talk pages in Wikipedia. So, I have a feeling that this is hypocrisy.Anonymy365248 (talk)03:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could be legacy accounts or something, but that is besides the point. Why not just change it so that all the numbers are spelled out instead? "Twenty-TwelveDotThreeSixSixDotTwoHundredFourtyEight" or so. It wouldn't look like an ip address and it would be all numbers still. --Super Goku V (talk)03:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I say deny list, I was blocked from requesting a rename. I kept requesting my name to be changed to any username with no letters for 8 times, most of which were numbers and periods, and all of them were rejected, due to it resembling IP adresses, even if they're not. The reason why I rename myself with s is because I saw some users with the same usernames with only numbers and periods. However, the global rename demanded them to at least 1 letter and so I did add them. I even add two to for the username to be accepted, but still rejected, for some reason.Anonymy365248 (talk)03:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you keeping an eye out—however, fromWP:NACD:Certain venues have made an exception to this rule [...] per the implementation process at WT:CFD/W – [non-admins] may close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion discussions as delete. As Pppery said, the bus factor (both for admins and closers) at CfD is really low, so it might take a bit before something is moved fromWT:CFDW (where non-admins list closes) to the fully protectedWP:CFDW for bot implementation. You can check that I've listed the discussion, underWikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working § Non-admin closure requests (12 February 2026). That said, I ever do forget to list something in the future or if there are any other concerns about my closes, do reach out—I'm always open to feedback! Best,GoldRomean (talk)18:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we prefer to wait until an account edits before doing anything, if for no other reason than to avoid extra work. It is also a poor idea to draw attention to usernames intended for disruption by mentioning them on high-profile noticeboards; reports should go toWP:UAA instead. Quietly blocking sleeper socks can have value, but the quiet part is key.~2025-41540-19 (talk)01:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On February 10, I full protectedFeeding Our Future(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs) due to edit warring. A temporary account immediately came to my user talk page and asked that I remove the content being edit warred over. A registered user followed suit. They cite BLP, lack of consensus, and UNDUE. Here'sthe content in question.
In my assessment, the content is fine (even if I think it needs some revision). The content itself is not a BLP violation and is factually accurate. Further, it adheres toWP:LEAD and is stated in a neutral tone. The content was addedDecember 6 and remained unchallenged until the TA who visited my user talk page removed it on January 28 for the first time. That same dayToBeFree semi-protected the article. It was then edit warred over the following 14 days.
Even includingthe corresponding body content, the living people mentioned are just Bock and Trump, and it would seem such controversy as there is only relates to the latter.
Lack of consensus and UNDUE are not generally reasons to edit through full-protection.WP:BLP may be, but I don't see that here. The key is that it applies to information that isunsourced or poorly sourced. However, the sources used includeThe New York Times andThe Wall Street Journal, not sources normally considered poor. ~2026-32437-2 characterized them asbiased opinion pieces, and of course they can try to make that case at RSN for either those articles specifically or the sources as a whole, but until that happens the existing consensus as to general reliability holds.
As a procedural matter restoring a status quo version can be controversial, but what's done is done, and editing through full-protection after the fact tends to make things worse. What needs to happen now is a talk page discussion to decide what exactly should be in or out of the article; possibly an RfC if things deadlock.~2025-41540-19 (talk)05:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a BLP problem but I'd disagree only Bock and Trump are affected. Other living people are clearly affected by what the text says and number of them are even named in our article.Nil Einne (talk)13:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean the text can't be a BLP violation. For example if instead of saying what it says, the text said something like "As most perpetrators, excluding B, were S-A rapists and murderers, the scandal resulted in increased political attention on the community, including from the...." this would be a clear and major BLP violation in the absence of impeccable sourcing and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. Frankly anyone who think it isn't shouldn't be editing BLPs point blank. But this variant just changes what was said about the people unnamed in that text but named in our article. Amply demonstrating the point that just because they are not directly named doesn't mean there is no BLP risk when they are readily identifiable (in this case even named in our article).Nil Einne (talk)10:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note in such an extreme case most doesn't matter IMO. But you're free to substitute with all if it would help clear things in your mind, since your claim above was because they're not directly named in the text it cannot be a BLP violation and you did not raise anything about most vs all until below. 10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)Nil Einne (talk)10:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you review you'll see what I've expressed is that these are extremely complicated and fact specific. Bringing in extreme case hypotheticals does not help in their resolution the same way it does when philosophically discussing the application of absolute hard-and-fast ruleswhich we generally do not have for that among other reasons. If you want to digress to discussing hypotheticalspreferably on one of our user talk pages you won't have to go that far; a simple change toall here would have very different implications as to BLP applicability.~2025-41540-19 (talk)16:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping.Ethiopian Epic is currently discussing their edit warring block on their talk page, currently only with me, arguing that their repeated removal was covered byWP:3RRNO's BLP exception. If there's a consensus here that it doesn't apply in this case, that would be useful for the (un)block discussion as well.~ ToBeFree (talk)15:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is covered by 3RRNO's BLP exception, but it is not a massive stretch for someone to believe it was (though they should have made it clear).Black Kite (talk)15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of defendants listed by name on the page, so it's a BLP matter because it says "as most perpetrators". The problem though is that it's asanewashing or targeting of people, via the "increased political attention on the community" part which is vague and euphemistic. It's adog whistle that associates ethnicity and crime and gives undue attention to afalse narrative Republicans have used. Racist people also attempted to promote stereotypes. While it seems like a simple statement this sanewashing affects the defendants on the page and normalizes sanewashing against other people of the same ethnicity too. It should be removed until there's a consensus which is required.~2026-32437-2 (talk)01:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it's actuallyquite complicated. Stating demographic facts about sayIndiaor evenTuvalu will not implicate BLP. However, demographic facts about a municipality with population of oneand a number of such places exist will. Even pushing that to two or three will normally implicate BLP. Lots of room between those two extrema. For similar reasons content that is stated to apply toall members of a group is more likely to implicate BLP than content that is stated to apply tosome. That can be worked-out atWP:BLPN if anyone cares to start a discussion.
However for the purpose of this discussion it is not necessary to examine that too closely since bothWP:NYT andWP:WSJ have repeatedly been determined to be high-quality sources by community consensus and so satisfy the BLP requirement. TheStar Tribune has been less discussed, but to the extent it has is considered a standardWP:NEWSORG. You have expressed that you do not consider, either those articles specifically, or perhaps the NYT/WSJ/TMST in general, to be reliable. You can make the case for that at RSN, but until that happens the existing consensus stands.
I understand you believe the article is non-neutral, but that is not a reason to edit through full-protection. Don't get me wrong, just because a fact is in even the highest-quality RS does not mandate inclusion, and there are many good-reasons to exclude them. The specifics are always subject to page consensus. And it is likely a review of a very large number of RS to fairly represent all views in DUE proportion to their prominence will be needed here.
I have not looked closely, but I suspect there is probably enough existing discussion to be in line with RFCBEFORE, so go ahead and start an RfC to get a binding consensus one way or the other.~2025-41540-19 (talk)03:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is notWP:BLPGROUP when it is referencing "perpetrators" who are named on the page. My reliability comment wasn't about NYT or WSJ, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion as you say. Regardless of content arguments, this is a BLP matter, and as such consensus is required first when objected to.~2026-32437-2 (talk)06:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not quite right. The content in question makes no direct mentions so is a BLPGROUP. Perhaps other content on the page elsewhere is an issue, but that isn't what the community was asked to review here. Furthermore, as I've stated I do not think it matters much because the inclusion of material regarding Bock and Trump means there are clearly at least some BLP implications. However, because BLP is satisfied by the use of high-quality sources and those are indeed present no concern arises from that direction.
And it is not at all simple, because material that has been repaired to address concerns is judged on a cas-by-case basis. It would seem per your own admission above then, that your reliability concerns related to some earlier sources, but that has now been repaired by adding sources you appear to have no objection to, and so there is no cause to edit through full protection.
A direct mention is not required. It says "the perpetrators" and the perpetrators are named on the page. Also BLPGROUP says "a harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a large one" so this is still aWP:BLP problem. My reliability comment was about different material, but that's a moot point because BLP isn't about deciding content. It's the procedure for handling disputes over certain classes of content.
Someone can start a RfC, yes, but that's aside from the point.WP:BLP is about procedure and the procedure is that, when objected to, challenged BLP material be removed until the resolution.~2026-32437-2 (talk)07:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except it does not say it applies toall of them onlymost which admittedly is still more likely to raise BLP concerns thansomelots of discussion about this sort of thing over time; and the group referred to is just shy of 100 in number, so unless 40+ are named it's not clearly applying to any of them. Again I do not believe this is that important, but if you do then start a discussion about it at BLPN. If, as you believe is the case, it is obvious then it will snow that way promptly.
That is not what BLP says about the procedure, the exclusion is only an tentative initial basis, but once repaired it's a case-by-case assessment.
Yourinitialobjections on EvergrrenFir's user talk page regarding the material in question both included concerns about source quality. But now you're saying they were not about the material discussed there but something else. Now I get it, things can get confused every so often, but we're not mind readers so the way you phrase your concerns is going to be what people go off of.
Again feel free to start a VP discussion about this in the abstract that requires one specific version to be protected either generally or for BLPs only and see what feedback you get.~2025-41540-19 (talk)07:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I do not consider most vs all particularly important, but by my count include Bock the table lists 55 people, so it's even more highly questionable to claim none of them are implicated by what our article says. It's entirely reasonable the vast majority of readers are going to think at least some of the 54 people out of 77 are part of the "most". As also noted above, I do not consider what is said a BLP violation, but them not being named in the text of concern is not significant especially considering we have a table with 55 names. And even most vs all is only a minor issue.Nil Einne (talk)10:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's part of what I was getting at earlier, there clearly are at least some BLP concerns here because two names are indisputably provided without even dissecting the BLPGROUP stuff which is always a mess anytime the numbers are between about 10 and 1000, but that concern is met because high-quality sources are used.~2025-41540-19 (talk)16:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make this simple: It's well cited by sources that have, by community consensus, been determined to be reliable. The page is fully protected. The answer toit should be removed is "no". -The BushrangerOne ping only06:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No in fact not. For BLP often initially, sort-of anyway. Though even that is complicated and relies on good-faith assertions the material is not BLP compliant, usually due to being unsourced or poorly sourced, but once repaired it's assessed on a case-by-case basis.
VNOT says nothing about consensus being required for inclusion, but does note consensus can exclude verifiable information.
You may be thinking ofWP:ONUS, but the consensus around who can claim ONUS and when is so muddled that it's not going to be a reason to edit though full-protection. I would venture that in around half of all cases the fully-protected version ends up being the one with disputed content included;them's the breaks.
Feel free to start an RFCBEFORE at VP suggesting that when full-protection is applied to pages as a result of some content being alternately edit-warred in and out of a page that the page be set to the version excluding the content, and see what feedback you get.~2025-41540-19 (talk)07:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:VNOT. All BLP material is subject to the affirmative consensus requirement if objected to. Your source argument is one for a RfC but it doesn't suspend the process for contested BLP content which is consensus first.~2026-32437-2 (talk)16:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to reread my remarks above at 07:10, and the material at VNOT itself but that isn't what it says. ONUS is closer, but you seemed to express we needn't concern ourselves with it above.
The process for content believed to be BLP violating is default removal upon a good-faith concern that it does not comply with some aspect of BLP. However, following repair it is a case-by-case judgement. For other than BLP objections, e.g. on the basis of VNOT, it does not apply at all.~2025-41540-19 (talk)17:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that in addition to the NYTimes and WSJ, other highly reliable sources have also explicitly described that most of the defendants in the FoF case are Somali American, and the related political attention from the Trump administration. Two examples: the AP (link) and Reuters (link). This is not aWP:BLP violation or evenWP:SYNTH - it's just a summary of what reliable sources have said. —Ganesha811 (talk)14:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The exemption toWP:3RR isn't as wide as all of BLP policy. Editing waring, as in this case, just because the details concern a BLP will likely result in a block. The other issue with that exemption is that as the policy says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Just because editors think that it should fall under the exemption doesn't mean it does. So EvergreenFir's actions were correct, discussion on the content should continue on the talk page. I'm not sure where you getting "requires an affirmative consensus" from, but remember that the first way of getting consensus is through editing. If that fails then you should discuss it on the talk page. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:53, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For reference VNOT says that not all verifiable informationhas to be present in an article, it doesn't say anything about living people. You may have mixed up your shortcuts. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not under dispute that the content involves living people ("the perpetrators"), so it's a BLP matter. And if it's a BLP matter it requires consensus to include when challenged. Being verifiable does not change that (VNOT), it could be determined that there is harm through the dog whistle phrasing, it isn't due, etc. Restoring the material prior to consensus was not the correct action according to the plain text of the policy.~2026-32437-2 (talk)17:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"And if it's a BLP matter it requires consensus to include when challenged" can you point to which policy you're getting that from? Specifically that BLP content has this requirement. VNOT is not a reason to remove content or exclude content, is say at that the argument that content is verifiable and so itmust be included isn't valid. I think you meanWP:ONUS, that if you want to include challenged content then you're responsible for finding consensus. But even that doesn't mean it must be discussed and agreed upon first, as I said the first type of consensus is through editing. Secondly consensus doesn't require unanimity, that not all editors agree doesn't mean consensus hasn't been reached. Repeating the same point doesn't mean that consensus hasn't been reached in a way that you don't like. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to 32437-2, in isolation, and without much experience in day-to-day practice, some material atWP:BLP#Restoration may seem to indicate that, and they are not the first to misread it that way. Because it is easy to miss the part that indicatesany editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies hence restoration with high-quality RS is fine. AndMaterial that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So whether the default is in or out for material otherwise in compliance with the sections on writng style, reliable sources, etc. is usually not going to be clear cut one way or another.
There may also be some off-wiki advice that is just wrong going around because every so often when doing RCP you'll see a new account that was blanking reliably sourced, but unflattering material, go ballistic because we aren't following our own policies requiring the material be left out until there is an agreement,usually accompanied by accusations that we are biased against them for some reason or another, and I'm reasonably confident it's not all just people from one UPE org.
Coming back to the topic a bit, I think part of the problem was that the question on EvergreenFir's talk page was at the very least mal posée, and may not have been the question they intended to ask at all, which couldn't help but confuse things here.
None of that matters now because the full-protection has expired and so the specific issue is moot. If anyone cares to discuss the larger question in a stylized abstract way, VPP is open.~2025-41540-19 (talk)01:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that it's well accepted at BLPN thatWP:BLPUNDEL means that if content has been challenged on good faith BLP grounds, then the challenging editor is entitled to demand explicit consensus to restore it. The bit about repairing just means that any editor can make an effort to reword or address the problem without needing to get explicit consensus. And if they make a good effort they should not be automatically sanctioned over it, perhaps even if their effort doesn't sufficiently address the concerns and maybe consensus even establishes it is a BLP violation. And any other editors should consider carefully whether the edits/repair sufficiently allay their concerns to no longer require the application of BLPUNDEL. However if there is continued objection on good faith BLP grounds even after repair attempts or if the content is being restored without modification, then yes the editor making this objection is entitled to demand consensus is demonstrated before it is restored. It obviously make absolutely no sense whatsoever to suggest that if an editor A objects to some content on good faith BLP grounds this cannot be restored without consensus. But if an editor B then changes it in a way that the editor A does not feel addresses their concerns, editor A cannot continue to object on good faith BLP grounds and demand consensus before restoration. Again anyone not aware of this probably shouldn't be editing BLPs. I'll pingUser:Morbidthoughts who's been particularly active in enforcing BLPUNDEL recently.Nil Einne (talk)09:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'd add that IMO regardless of ONUS etc and whether the is need for consensus generally all parties to a dispute should explain their view without waiting for someone else. This is especially the case with BLP where often the concerns can be complicated. So even in a BLPUNDEL situation, a lot of the time I'd expect the editor making the objecting to appear on the talk page explaining why they feel the material needs to stay out until there's consensus rather than waiting for someone else to initiate the discussion. And this is especially if they need to revert because someone restored it (without or without modification).Nil Einne (talk)10:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is neither the plain language of the policy, nor day to day practice.should be judged on a case-by-case basis is right there and if memory serves was added precisely because of situations like this. The objection must be on grounds listed within the BLP policy i.e. does not comply with BLPRS not does not comply with ONUS, or does not comply with VNOT.
I'll admit I have not been around much for better than a decade now, but the practice really does not seem to have shifted here, if people blank content that is neutrally written and supported by high-quality sources just because they don't like it, we restore after a quick check and when they persist they often get blocked or the page gets protected, sometimes both.~2025-41540-19 (talk)14:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it complies or not is to be determined through consensus and that consensus is done before the restoration, not after. I agree with Nil Einne.~2026-32437-2 (talk)10:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And the first form of consensus is through editing. That a couple of editors tried to edit war content out against the consensus of multiple other editors is againstWP:CONSENSUS. Consensus doesn't mean that editors have to have a talk page discussion, or that all editors have to agree. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.~2026-32437-2 (talk)10:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was already discussed above, it has to read on in the context of what comes before and after. You firstly need a BLP reason like BLPRS to object and not merely VNOT, and secondly with repair it becomes a case-by-case assessment potentially to be discussed at BLPN.~2025-41540-19 (talk)15:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation doesn't change the plain text of the policy above. AndWP:BLP cites NPOV (undue, etc) as well as'the possibility of harm to living subjects', so those are valid reasons for instance, among others.~2026-32437-2 (talk)16:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation doesn't change the plain text of the policy above; see how facile that is? You are correct that there are other grounds other than BLPRS that can be invoked like say BLPCOI, but merely combining non-neutral with BLP in an edit summary does not force an exclusion. Often the case-by-case discussion on BLPN will lead to one, but sometimes it won't.
The possibility of harm to living subjects is largely about privacy; it has never been interpreted to mean anything someone thinks might potentially cause someone to come to harmwhich loosely could be applied to just about anything. Don't get me wrong I've seen whitewashers try to use it to say we can't mention outright neo-nazis, noted as such such by impeccable RS, are just that, but that's not how this works.
Fact is, merely citing BLP in an edit summary does not entitle someone to blank material cited to high-quality RS and demand anyone restoring it be blocked. Indeed the purpose of BLPRESTORE is set out in its incipitTo ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources.
Now you'll say that maybe obvious driveby removals of RS sourced content by new accounts can be reverted by RCP, but for someone who's clearly HERE that things are different, but no actually. The purpose here applies to everyone.
You aren't the policy. It's even more simple:If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Whether BLP applies or not is based on if the material is within the class of material defined as'information about living persons'. If it turns out that the arguments for inclusion are strong and/or the basis for the objection was weak, it will quickly be restored as the outcome of a discussion. But it shouldn't be restored prior to the discussion if there already wasn't a previous one. For Richard Spencer, there is probably already a previous consensus on how to refer to him, which could be used to skip the discussion requirement. If there isn't, it would quickly conclude to support that description.~2026-32437-2 (talk)04:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At it's core the project is a collaborative venture, so no one person has sole power of interpretation, but that includes you. That there are multiple users in this thread who oppose your view should be some indication it is not as reflective of our practice as you think it is.
And for what its worth there was no explicit prior consensus in favor of the exact material diffed earlier, though I agree a discussion would not have taken long.
Even if we lean a bit your way, it still falls flat in this case, because the last sentence in that paragraph shifts things to a case-by-case anyway.
Now being clear I understand you intended to leave a message objecting on VNOT grounds, but got confused. But whatever your intentions, the action you actually took was challenging the reliability of the sources; grounds which you subsequently doubled down on. Most people seeing such an objection to content supported by both NYT and WSJ would be less charitable than EvergreenFir in the situation. Since it was obvious the objection was repaired, or rather never needed repair in the first place, the categorization of this as a case-by-case circumstance was fully warranted even accepting a much broader view than is normal.
And at the risk of digressing, when most patrollers see an edit removing content multiply sourced to extensively discussed RS, which claims the sources are junk, they will revert it without second thought, BLP or no. It's actually classic UPE airbrushing behavior. Those who repeatedly blank such content wind up blocked. I would even venture that an XRV discussion wouldn't condemn a rollback in that circumstance.
An edit summary invoking VNOT however is going to set a very different toneunfortunately even the middling socks and UPEs are aware of that, and then some.
Again I get that was not the tone you intended to set, but it was the tone you did set.
Finally if you had simply started a BLPN discussion for the case-by-case assessment at the same time as this thread, it would have resolved by now, so everyone could rest easy on what the interim looks like. If the answer is as obvious as you seem to believe it is, it might have been done before this was even much progressed. But to paraphrase an old apothegm, the best time may have been then, but the second best time is now.~2025-41540-19 (talk)05:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what part of'If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first' isn't clear to you. Editors above agree with this as well, and Nil Einne says'this is well accepted at BLPN'.[41]~2026-32437-2 (talk)13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
None of it. None of the editors above agreed, and if anything I'd venture the majority viewthough ironically not my view is that it is entirely N/A, since that section covers only actual deletion. Adopting the legalist position as you have no chosen to do entirely undermines your case. But since you have decided to make that your cynosure, I suppose I have an obligation to explain why even though it is not mine.
Somewhat surprised no one has actually laid out the legalist case here and offered really firm pushback, perhaps they enjoy the irony. And on reflection my sympathies toward some of your positions may have led me to be less firm than was perhaps best, and however well-intended ultimately lead to simply more wasted time for everyone.~2025-41540-19 (talk)15:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually an agreement, with you anyway. In fact it, possibly inadvertently, endorses my position. Indeed for it to be true case-by-case discussions must have happened at BLPN. That the outcomes there ultimately tended one way or the other is irrelevant.
I suppose I do now find myself in the absurd position of needing to lay out the legalist position so you can understand precisely why your adoption of it is self-defeating, just give me five minutes to type it up.For anyone who may have avoided commenting here in the hopes I would be forced to do this, you are about to get your wish.~2025-41540-19 (talk)18:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is in fact mostly about content, with the core concern being to ensure that content is neutrally written to a high-standard based on high-quality RS; the rest is just expansion on how best to ensure that outcome is achieved.~2025-41540-19 (talk)17:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As matter of internal wikispeak it's a bog-standard policy, and not even a procedural one; process pages are categorizedhere. As a matter of typical descriptive English usage by the unintitiated, it's a collection of best practices for collaborative online-encyclopedia writing about currently living people.~2025-41540-19 (talk)18:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Correct action. BLP is about protecting article subjects. There's no harm to these article subjects caused by the well-referenced, factual statement that most of the perpetrators (i.e. those found guilty) are Somali American and that this has been politically weaponised. The potential harms to Somali Americans and Minneapolis society in general are not under the remit of BLP, per BLPGROUP. You don't get a BLP exemption for edit warring over this. We might wish race and ethnicity didn't come into it, but reliable sources discuss this and so we must too per NOTCENSORED and DUE.Fences&Windows12:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content opinion. We are not discussing content we are discussing BLP procedure. The policy isIf it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first hence it was not the correct action. Also this isn't about Somali Americans in general, it is about'the perpetrators' who are mentioned on the page by name, so BLPGROUP does not apply.~2026-32437-2 (talk)13:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is gradually becoming apparent you haven't much experience in the BLP area thennothing wrong with that mind you, we were all there once and I think your knowledge of wikispeak is a bit weak too; for one thing BLP is fundamentally a content policy and not a procedure as you aver. This comment is self-defeating because when there is unclarity as to something e.g. whether or not BLPGGROUP applies, a page is never ripe for editing through full-protection. But as it turns out the BLPGGROUP question is a red-herring anyway, anyway and a legalist position leads to the exact opposite outcome of the one you have advocated.~2025-41540-19 (talk)16:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The merits of why something should be included ("it's a fact!") is a content opinion that is not under discussion here. We're discussing the procedural matter of if material disputed on BLP grounds should be restored prior to any consensus in either direction.~2026-32437-2 (talk)18:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand what it is you think the perpetrators need protecting from under BLP policy. Unless you can articulate that, you're simply wikilawyering.Fences&Windows21:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you've been in the know this whole time chuckling because the metaphoric shoe is on the other foot, you can stop reading now, but for the record I've been aware of the irony the whole timeand for the horde of LTAs wishing me an ironic hell, know that this was surreal rather than unpleasant.
I am not and probably never will be a strict Wikipedia legalist, but to be 100% clear, as a matter of strict legalism BLPRESTORE only ever applies to content that has actually been hidden from public view using the deletion feature and there really isn't even any ambiguity.
To fully understand why, we need to discuss a bit of history. And while there's far more to unpack than I have time forand even literal decades later I'm not sure I really want to unpack any of the Danial Brandt stuff, the key is that WHEEL was becoming a bright red line at the same time BLP was growing legs. As you might infer, that had the potential to create an incredibly tense situation when an article summarily deleted on BLP grounds was subsequently summarily restoredand yes for those unfamiliar with mid-00s sysop behavior, stuff like that literally happened. It was in that context the earliest version of BLPRESTORE was written precisely to prevent that, and that specifically, from happening. We didn't even have revdel then, and the dark art needed to hide revisions individually involved deleting the whole page first.
Now BLP has evolved overtime, but one thing has remained constant, BLPRESTORE has remained in a section pertaining specifically to deletions as such. Remember all PAGs are written in wikispeak. When they saynotable they mean something different and more specific than it's normal English meaning, likewise foroversightdifferent from both normal meanings or indeeddelete. For those who wish to dismiss this as a historical curiosity, know that attempts to move the content out of a section pertaining to deletions specifically, or to change deleted to something else indeleted on good-faith BLP objections have been repeatedly rejected precisely to avoid broadening usage.
While the legalist case may be open and shut, I still like to thing we can run on practice, judgement, and common-sense, at least to some extent. As such I do not believe that just because content does not quite cross the line into RD2 territory does not mean we should treat it the same as we would well-sourced neutrally written prose, or that we should adopt a narrow strictly legalist position, and such material should nonetheless by default stay out pending discussion. And while BLPRESTORE may not have originally been written to address that specific situation, it is a fairly good set of principles we can use to guide our decisions in those circumstances. Furthermore I believe that day-to-day practice does follow something approaching this, even if the exact norm has never been precisely codified. Even so, and accepting such fuzziness around these as there is, when content is paraphrasing the material found in multiple high-quality RS, the purpose of BLP isn't being served by treating it the same as RD2'd material, and doing so runs into conflict with other principles embodied in their own policies.
I've probably written my fair share and then some as this ultimately leaned more contentious than collaborative, even accounting for the charge to be extra involved in threads where other unregistered users are major participants to avoid perceptions of unfairness. I probably have at least a few hours before I need to set myself on a wikibreak so prompt requests for expansion on my user talk page may be answered there. Otherwise I'll probably limit myself to brief responses, and perhaps one separate and entirely clear statement of confidence.~2025-41540-19 (talk)18:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BLPRESTORE only ever applies to content that has actually been hidden from public view – no. Such content may not be "restored without significant change" anyway as it would just qualify for revision deletion again. That makes no sense. The word "deleted" inWP:BLPRESTORE refers to the simple removal of text any user can perform. Whatyou refer to is in the revision deletion policy itself, limiting revision undeletion toclear, wider consensus inWikipedia:Revision deletion § Appeal and discussion of actions.~ ToBeFree (talk)19:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And subsequentlymoved to a sysop specific subsection with an edit summary characterizing it as covering a sysop-specifc action; it remains there to this day. Also if we're playing the diff game, 2018 is much later than 2010 and as you can see SlimVirgin was extensively involved throughout.
I can't help but note the irony here, that while your knowledge of events easily exceeds mine by a country mile for anything post 2014ish, with the reverse being true pre-2012, that I started out with a 2018 diff, and you with a 2010 one.
True. :) I had to look that one up using WikiBlame's revision history search. "Subsequently" being about 5 years later. This is leading nowhere; you may be right about the history. What I currently see is a section full of aspects that make no sense if interpreted in this way, including the implication that an administrator might have revision-deleted the content with bad-faith BLP objections (as opposed to thegood-faith action the policy protects). Revision deletion and undeletion are restricted byWP:RD. For article content, we haveWP:ONUS andWP:BURDEN, and for biographical content about living persons additionallyWP:3RRNO #7 and restrictions from the BLP policy such ascontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion[46] in bold text and explicitly extending upon the default verifiability requirements. If material should beremoved without (or before) discussion and may be re-removed even if it requires edit warring, that implies that it may not be restored without discussion. WhetherWP:BLPRESTORE or the rest of the policy create that restriction is practically irrelevant.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is a page structure that makes no sense if interpreted otherwise; feel free to examine it. The section header isRole of administrators, the subsections arePage protection,Contentious topics, andDeletion. So in a section referring specifically to sysops with subtitles covering specifically sysop actions, is anyone going to insist that one subsubsection was intended to refer to something else? You see it makes no sense. And yes, if SlimVirgin were still around I'd ping here so she could tell you herself.
If you can't believe that pages were ever summarily deleted by sysops acting in bad-faith, then I have got some stories to tell youbut not this go around, or even probably with this TA.
The section you quote is much narrower than that present further down. Note the explicitunsourced or poorly sourced, which would have entirely prevented this discussion from happening if present below.
I agree policies are often written in a messy way, I have probably even supported some additions that made things messier at one time or another because I didn't think them through. But that is no reason to go about reading policies in a strained way when the organization is so clearly laid out.~2025-41540-19 (talk)20:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So if I replace "deleted" by "revision deleted" in that policy section, the only reason why that would be undone is because it would exclude page deletion? Something in me wants to try this.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course when BLP was written revdel wasn't a thing, but actually the whole page deletion still has relevance. The very first subsectionSummary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking still covers that. Though today that is almost always going to be handled through normal CSD tagging.
Even so it is far from useless. Sysops do sometimes still reverse speedies without discussion for being obviously wrong, much rarer now than in the past but it does happen, and if they alleged say a G3 or G10 wasn't applicable when they did so, that section would be quoted to them.~2025-41540-19 (talk)20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're right.
I have enforced a misinterpretation ofWP:BLPRESTORE for years.
Surely this discussion needs to be had at VPP with advertising at BLP/N, and other relevant places. You don't get to decide policy interpretation here.Fences&Windows21:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
People saying potentially falls under, or even falls under without specifying what that means doesn't amount to much. Even more clear cases said in a discussion primarily about something else carry far less weight than ones in cases where the meaning of the text is being directly assessed.
I am not aware of any focused discussions postdating the 2018 one, though admittedly I'm not around much.
RFCBEFORE may be usefuldon't have time to participate, but would be unlikely to offer much beyond historical background anyway, but if we're to the point of no one knowing what a policy means, then continuing to try to rake a sysop over the coals for possibly having gotten something wrong is ridiculous.~2025-41540-19 (talk)22:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true. In the 2010 diff "administrator" was deleted from the section. In the 2015 diff that changed the structure to add the "Role of Administrators" section, the BLPRESTORE section wasn't targeted in particular. 5 sections were moved, and BLPRESTORE probably was too because it partially concerns administrators.
The reason it says'material' and not article is because it refers material in general. This is also why it says'retain, restore, or undelete' rather than just'undelete', and why the lead sentence says'"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed". See this 2015 discussion.[52]~2026-32437-2 (talk)21:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, one user providing an interpretation while brainstorming ideas has very little weight, a sock essentially none at all. Multiple users in a focused consensus forming discussion as the 2018 one turned into, considerably more.~2025-41540-19 (talk)22:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2018 discussion was not closed and it was just 3 users voting for the status quo. Their justifications aside, it isn't common or supported by the text to interpret it that way as shown by 4 much more recent examples.[53]~2026-32437-2 (talk)22:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many formal discussions, including RfCs, require no closure. The habit of closing everything in sight on noticeboards is a modern phenomena.
Since we're breaking down the 2015 thread, a sock made a proposal, someone objected, and three users brainstormed some restructuring; not much there and also a red-herring.
Four users bolded opposes in 2018 another bolded a no, though the bolding is not that important, two others agreed in part, and one in full; there's clearly no consensus to change the interpretation there, and formal closure isn't needed and would be a waste of time.~2025-41540-19 (talk)22:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inclined to quibble over the adjective; nothing came of the discussion and still a red-herring. I discussed the merits of one or two off comments in discussions about something else already above and am disinclined to repeat it.~2025-41540-19 (talk)23:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Massively overdue. But to make my position on the original topic perfectly clear, whether I or anyone would have acted in the same way as EvergreenFir, the actions were well within the left and right limits governing the situation, and EvergreenFir retains my fullest confidence as a sysop.~2025-41540-19 (talk)23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that. In a more general sense we've just been discussing how to treat honest BLP objections that have no consensus. Some people disagree as well but it doesn't seem to be a common view. The direct reading of the policy and many users[58][59][60][61][62] support removal pending consensus.~2026-32437-2 (talk)23:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If that's really your position then you should have just started a BLPN discussion. The extent to which AN should even influence policy is controversial, see remark by Fences and Windows above. Personally I accept it just happens sometimes, if changes thought to be uncontroversial to a policy page are opposed, they can always be widely advertised and discussed in the correct places.~2025-41540-19 (talk)00:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"you want sources Phlogiston Enthusiast? There you have it. Next time, take a look at the page BEFORE my edits and look if I didn't add references enough, and be WP:BOLD and search for it yourself instead of giving pointless warnings."
Given that you and I havea history, I don't say this lightly but... you've blundered into another situation with a fellow editor where you've gone all-in with them over something minor without the benefit of seeing a bigger picture. Can I ask you again to slow down, and when you think you see edits that are not straight-up vandalism but don't know whether they're good or not, pause before leaping in boldly? BrazilianDude70 was unsurprisingly pissed off to be lectured by you, which then caused their intemperate edit summary. Such an event is unsurprising since we're trying to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia with other human beings, not playing a game of get-the-most-internet-points. In peace and friendship: •a frantic turtle 🐢18:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I appreciate this comment, but I disagree with the reasoning here. I never claimed the user was a vandal, or committing vandalism, only that they had made multiple unsourced edits. Second, there was no lecture, but rather two sentences, which were a polite request against unsourced editing. Third, reasonably angry and outright agression are two different things, and should be treated as such. I am not attempting to 'score internet points'.pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE)18:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlogiston Enthusiast: dude, chill out. You are here for three months and it seems like I'm not the first one who thinks your approach is completely overboard. Did you take a look at the aforementioned articlebefore my edits? No, you didn't. Again, instead of giving these types of warnings, take a look at the full situation. Furthermore, you had the opportunity to go after sources yourself, but it seems easier to give warnings to other users, right? Cheers,BRDude70 (talk)22:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, after reading what @A Frantic Turtle just posted, it does seem like a pattern from you in this short period you're here, @Phlogiston Enthusiast. You annoy an user out of the blue, it comes back to haunt you, and you go "oh look at them, they are being rude to me". Did you ever reflect on your initial behaviour? Because I was minding my own business and trying to contribute here in a very pacific way. From my point of view, you had a lot of ways to approach this, you chose a bad one and now you're coming here to complain about the consequences of your actions.
I may have stepped out of line, sure, and I apologize, but you do need to work on a few things yourself if you want to continue helping to build this encyclopedia. "Aggression" is not a personal attack, and I stand by what I said: you had every opportunity to beWP:BOLD and add those sources - which I wasted two minutes gatheringyesterday (because by the time I added the information there wasnone of it) or simply could come to me andask for help instead of trying to lecture an experienced user. Cheers,BRDude70 (talk)06:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
~2026-10102-36 is repeatedly adding content toBaltimore Catholic League that is unsourced. When I warn them, theyasked me tostay off the page as I didn't know anything about the article's subject. I told them that their edits need to verifiable, regardless of the number of sources the article currently has. Afterwards, another TA (~2026-48508-5), who also appears to be them based on what they commented, added a personal attack to my talk page, which was reverted, which they added back.TheTechie[she/they] |talk?04:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've used Wikipedia since its inception but this is the first article I'm creating from scratch. Draft page name is "Draft:Womontown (Kansas City, Missouri)." Right after creating the draft, i received the following alert message:
Creation of this page (Draft:Womontown (Kansas City, Missouri)) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry.*woo?mo.* <autoconfirmed> #attack pages created by LTA on thelocal orglobal blacklists.
Womontown was a significant historic lesbian/queer neighborhood in Kansas City, MO in the 1980s and 1990s. I'm not from Kansas City but first heard it mentioned recently -- it's gotten more press in the past few years (seethis NPR article andthis PBS documentary). While conversations and language in queer and lesbian spaces have shifted since the '80s and '90s, communities such as these still stand as important examples ofintentional community andgayborhoods, and I believe this urban Midwestern lesbian example merits its own Wikipedia page.
I can't totally tell why the title matched the blacklist, but please let me know if there's more I can do to help move the draft through. Thanks!
Politely revertingSchazjmd's close because the underlying issue hasn't been fixed here. This is a common issue that arises with regex-matching, where it doesn't occur to people that anything followed by a question-mark (or in other cases asterisk) quantifier can be ignored, leading to unintentionally short (and thus overbroad) regexen. Both.*woo?mo.* and.*moo?wo.* should be removed from the blacklist. These are common enough substrings that138 existing articles or redirects match them. Their inclusion in the blacklist fails to say which LTA prompted them, which would be useful information to know if these still serve any benefit at all, but this was addedalmost a decade ago. Even affecting only non-(auto)confirmed users, it makes you wonder how many userspace and draftspace drafts we've lost to people running into the same issue as Mooccze and not figuring out where to complain. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)14:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've run the extremely cursed meta-regex^\.\*\s*(\w((\w|\(\w*?\))[?*])?){1,4}\s*\.\*\s*$ against the title blacklist and found seven regexen that match strings of four word-characters or fewer. (This may be an undercount due to how I wrote the meta-regex). Four are reasonable: the case-sensitive.*COCK.*,.*CUM.*,.*DICK.*, and.*WHUT.*. Two are the ones mentioned above. The seventh probably also should be removed:.*koli.*. It only applies to pagemoves, so it's not as big a deal as the other two, but it's still extremely broad (applies to684 existing articles and redirects) and it hasn't done anything to deter the sockmaster in question (see alsoWP:NOSALT § Title blacklisting; full disclosure, own essay). --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)14:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this at all. Have we implemented regex to restrict the creation of articles with unnecessarily disambiguated titles? If so, that seems extremely reckless; if not, the comment about it seems irrelevant.Nyttend (talk)16:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, the disambiguation thing is unrelated to the technical issue here. It just happens that, because it turned out a previous undisambiguated title existed, OP didn't need to get the title-blacklist error resolved, since it was resolved by undeletion instead, which caused the underlying blacklist issue to not get resolved. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, the question mark after theo in those two regexen means "match this zero or one times". In other words, it means the regexen match not just anything containing "woomo" or "moowo", but also anything containing "womo" or "mowo", which are considerably more common substrings. (The dots and stars on the sides mean "if it appears anywhere in the title".) --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)16:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tamzin. I was wondering why this title was caught by .*woo?mo.* but now I see. I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The regexes should certainly be more targeted.Phil Bridger (talk)18:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
