Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

More airport disruption

CLOSED

Referred to ArbCom This discussion has continued for over a month. An arbitration case request covering this dispute and the broader issues in the topic area has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Airlines and Aviation. Due to the case at ArbCom and in the interest of not having parallel discussions going on this discussion is closed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is a followup to the related discussion (also started by Danners430) archived at Reywas92 - Repeated civility failings, aspersions, and refusal to take responsibility for their edits

I’m beginning to lose the will with Aviation at this point…

Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding commentary to Melilla Airport (, even after they were notified that commentary doesn’t belong in Wikipedia articles, both on their user talk and the article talk. Then after being informed that Google Flights fails WP:RS, they still add it as a source anyway , and have finally simply removed the entire table, including numerous pieces of well-sourced content . I’m just giving up at this point. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Danners430 report is wrong and accusatory. He/she is unnecessarily creating conflict. I asked him to create a RFC which he/she has refused to do. As such, his/her ANI complaint should be closed. Even better is to block him for 48 hours. ANI is not for content discussions or disputes.

The issue is that airport articles nearly always have destination charts. However, the Melilla Airport destination chart is 54% wrong and deceptive. 54% of the flights are not listed because of Danners' insistence of a citation that meets his/her approval. A citation for Malaga-Melilla air service was provided along with a ^{[citation needed]} tag to call for an even better reference is unacceptable to Danners.

I am not war-like and plan to stop editing right now. Let Danners get his way even though that is not the Wikipedia way. I am so sorry that Danners' aggression results in bullying. Instead, there should be polite discussion of the pros and cons but Danners will have none of that. He/she has been in edit disputes with others.Vanguard10 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not obligated to create an RfC because another user asks/tells me to - if you want one (not that I even know what it would be about) then you are free to create one… I am not obligated to do it for you. You added an unreliable source and even recognised that in your edit summary - hence it was removed. I have pointed you to WP:VNT and WP:BURDEN. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I protest the title of "More airport disruption". More suggests repeated. I have not had any recent contact with Danners until 30 minutes ago. I don't know what his/her problem is. Maybe he/she is too stressed as evidenced by his/her first sentence of "I'm beginning to lose the will with Aviation..."

Vanguard10 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you caused the previous disruption. It's more disruption in the airport topic, a notorious area of this encyclopedia where people constantly bring in poorly sourced flightcruft. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Just a note: Danners430 uses masculine pronouns, as mentioned as part of the talk header on his user talk. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 07:46, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

We do not require destination charts for airports if they're not properly sourced. The purpose of our airport articles is not to serve as a database for various aircruft and flightcruft. If something is sourced, it may be included with consensus. if something is not sourced, it may not. If 54% of the flights to this airport don't have reliable, independent sources, then that 54% of flights to this airport ought not be listed on English Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I have nothing to add about any underlying issues as I haven't looked that deeply into it, but yeah generally articles on the aviation topic here on Wikipedia could see improvement. However, Vanguard10 has complained about Danners430 at User talk:ToBeFree#I regret to inform you (diff) and User talk:Fnlayson#Airport destination chart (diff). Possible forum shopping? Fork99 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

No, Forks. This type of issue is a content issue that should not be on ANI but first resolved among editors. Danners430 did not. Instead, he/she ran to ANI within 30 minutes or so, which is an abuse of process and highly aggressive. Wikipedia is not a battleground but he/she keeps on doing it, including to others. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Considering your apparent cavalier attitude towards WP:V and that you think it matters that some random website suggests using Wikipedia for a non-Wikipedia purpose, what exactly could possibly be resolved? That you're adding unsupported prose and don't seem very concerned why that's a problem means that the disruption going forward wouldn't just be this edit to this article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

See [] Quote: 4) What next? Educate yourself (on Wikipedia?)
So you’ve done all of these things, and prices are still high. What else can you do? Do you know every airline that flies from your local airport and where they fly to? I bet that you don’t. I hate to say it, but Wikipedia is one of the best resources to find out the flights from any airport. See, people use Wikipedia for accurate airport destinations chart so if a chart has 54% of flights missing, that is a huge reputational hit against Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That is policy. The fact people misuse Wikipedia as a travel guide does not magically alter Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Vanguard10: If you would like to go beyond Wikipedia's policy on articles not being travel guides, may I suggest you head on over to WikiVoyage? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful if Wikipedia took a huge repetitional hit as a travel guide, a database of flights, a depository for indiscriminate information, or a vault of aircruft. It might actually slow the flow of people who come in here and violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to try and improve Wikipedia's reputation for all of these things. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note I should say that the pronoun "they" is a perfectly cromulent word. ~2026-50236-34 (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Your reference has embiggened this discussion! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The most recent RfC on this question concluded with the result that primary sources were fine to use for these tables. Katzrockso (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can confirm, as one minor point @CoffeeCrumbs - primary sources are fine, although of course secondary is preferred as per normal policy Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10 I told you to please stop splitting discussions - for the third time now, there is a notice at the top of my talk page (and it's duplicated as a page edit notice) that if the discussion in question is elsewhere, respond there not my talk page. This is now the third time I've reverted your additions to my talk page because you have ignored this notice - please stop posting on my talk page if the matter in question is being discussed elsewhere. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think one of Vanguard10's notes on another editor's page to complain about Danners430 makes it clear who needs a stern warning.

The reason is because there is a user (whose name is unimportant but is Danners430, if you want to know) that insists that a destination must never be listed unless it has a reliable source citation that is not the airline (and probably has to be a news story). He does not accept Google.com listings, calling it a booking engine. Iberia Regional/Air Nostrum operates 9 daily flights from Melilla to Malaga, representing 54% of the flights but it is not in the chart. Danners insists on removing it even if I put a [citation needed] tag and a less than perfect reference. Since 54% error rate makes the chart deceptive, inclusion of Melilla > removal of chart >> deceptive chart.

Vanguard10, this is not how Wikipedia sourcing works. I still don't understand why airlines/airports is thought by so many people to be this magical part of Wikipedia where sourcing is just a gentle suggestion. Sourcing is the point of Wikipedia. Once again, Wikipedia is not a travel agent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

And Danners430, I still think it would be a good idea for you to spend less time with airlines, not because you're doing anything incorrect, but because I think it's going to drive you batshit crazy, and I think that you should put your own well-being ahead of an area of Wikipedia that's insufficiently managed right now. Or at least spend the energy brainstorming some ideas at the village pump that have a better chance of stopping the problem; the airline area is a bit like bailing water out of a boat with a measuring cup, and the better solution is to try and build better boats. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Realistically, at this point I feel like a blanket semi-protection is all that will help… the vast majority of issues aren’t from experienced editors like Vanguard10 but TAs! On the other hand though there are plenty that make very constructive edits in the space… realistically I think the best thing for the WikiProject would simply be more eyes on articles, as it seems like there’s only a small core of editors in the space right now doing recent changes Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. There are two active ANI threads right now about airport-related nonsense. The worst part is that Danners is completely correct in the fact that unsourced content is bad, and yet people keep doing it! GarethBaloney (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I am actually amazed that an editor like Vanguard10 with over 2,000 edits still doesn't understand WP:V, much less cause disruption because they don't understand it. That is a very suboptimal idea and I'd strongly suggest to them that it stops now. But I'd agree with CoffeeCrumbs here, this is an area that will drive you insane very quickly. Whilst it wouldn't have made a difference here, I actually wonder if it would be worth just indefinitely semi-protecting all airport articles... Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand WP:V and provided a reference and a ^{[citation needed]} tag to invite a better reference. Danners430 then went to ANI, which is inappropriate for a content dispute in its early stage. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} is not a reference and does not render content immune to being removed as unreferenced per WP:V, and if a provided reference is not to a reliable source the content is in fact unreferenced and can be removed by any user at any time per WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the other editor means ^{[better source needed]}, since they said they added a source. Katzrockso (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

My last comment was a bit of an incomplete train of thought, but I think I’ve completed it now… I don’t think that would actually be worthwhile - there are a good number of high quality contributions in this space made by TAs, so I think that would be contrary to the intent of protection personally. If this is something to think about, I’d maybe suggest PC instead of protection…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

PC does not impact cleanup effort, so unfortunately it wouldn't help this situation. It is a natural occurrence that tables and lists attract unsourced edits (in other topic areas too), we haven't really figured out a solution to that. CMD (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Why have neither of you looked for independent sourcing rather than continuing this dispute? This is not a hard-to-verify topic. Fences&Windows 21:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

How does Google Flights fail RS? Katzrockso (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Google Flights is a search engine that gathers data from … that’s on you to find out. Per WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE, you should be citing original sources (e.g., information published by or about the airport) rather than what an aggregator says. I don’t even consider Google Flights reliable for booking flights; most of the “booking” links it spits out go to dubious travel agencies that use bogus prices to game the search engine. White 720 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Press reports or news stories are usually not the most accurate. Many of them say that service is planned at a future date, sometimes a few months away. Better yet is to confirm from the airline's website that you can book a ticket and also confirm flight status of yesterday's flights. The unintended consequence of some peoples' rules is that they are denying the most accurate sources and insisting on crystal ball type predictions or press releases from non-secondary sources. WP:V does not say "it's ok to be wrong or inaccurate, just have a source". It should be both, ideally, and at least correct. The part of Wikipedia that says that we just want sources, not be correct, is usually the most accurate for opinions but for hard facts like flights to cities, true accuracy and correct info is best. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're buying a ticket yes. If you're making an article on Wikipedia, which is absolutely not a booking site or a travel agent, then no. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Just imagine how easy it would be to write articles if <ref>Google</ref> were a valid citation! White 720 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

And this, right here, is one of the issues with simply placing a ref tag to an airline homepage… you’re expecting the reader to look up the information themselves instead of actually providing a source that verifies the content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh my- how is this at 243 comments 😭. Can someone explain to me whats happening ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

can someone explain to me whats happening i dont have the time to read all 245 (now 246 comments) ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

This thread is getting out of hand ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: Vanguard10 has supposedly retired. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:20, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yet has continued to respond to this ANI thread after that edit anyways, see above in the thread (after 07:52, 16 September 2026). Declaring that one has retired should not be a reason to discontinue an ANI discussion. Fork99 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, hence the word "supposedly". Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:32, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me. Have you heard of semi-retired? Have you heard of what should have been a friendly content discussion turn immediately into Danners ANI complaint. That is very aggressive and takes the wind out of productive editing. In other words, Danners has damaged Wikipedia and Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. This toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you would retire mid-ANI but ok, I will assume good faith. GarethBaloney (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Jauerback/Fork99 continues the damage by attacking editors. Please point to exactly where Jauerback or I have attacked you, otherwise this is casting aspersions. I have only stated a fact without any opinion, backed by evidence. Fork99 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

You mildly attacked me for making a comment. However, I do concede that you have not acted as savagely as Danners and for that, thank you. I do stand by my comment that toxicity in Wikipedia must stop. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you repeatedly make edits without reliable sources, restore unsourced content in full knowledge the source you’re using isn’t sufficient, and yet you’re angry at toxicity on Wikipedia…? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

False accusation of "repeatedly make edits without reliable sources" and false accusation of being angry. You brought a mild content discussion to ANI within minutes. You have been blocked before, multiple times. You are part of toxicity in Wikipedia. I wish I wouldn't have to say the truth but you are toxic. Please examine your behavior and inappropriate ANI use. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. This toxicity is why I have retired from Wikipedia with the exception of making limited comments to this active ANI report. Please, people, no toxicity on Wikipedia! Vanguard10 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

So you’re ignoring all the comments above where you’ve been told sourcing isn’t optional, the diffs above don’t exist, and you’re resorting to personal attacks…? Gotcha. A day ago I was about to suggest we could just close this since you retired, but given the sealioning I think there’s still something to be discussed… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:11, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are attacking me. I have provided citations. Others have, too. Rather than discuss the content dispute or content question, you bring it to the highest level possible, ANI. There is even a lower level, WP:AN. Your behavior is so toxic, which harms Wikipedia. I don't even want to edit now, just wrapping up this ANI and Wiki-retire. You have been blocked before and recently. Blocking is to prevent Wikipedia damage, not punishment. You damage Wikipedia and add to toxicity in WP. So sad. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

These are the four edits that you, personally, have made to Melilla Airport:

1. — Adds no citations.
2. — Adds a {{cn}} tag.
3. — Adds a {{cn}} tag and a citation to Google Flights, which is not a reliable source, as discussed above.
4. — Deletes the table of airlines and destinations.

I had to go to the eleventh most recent edit you have made to article space to find an example where you added citations to a reliable source, and in that case, you still didn't do so properly; you cited the same article twice, both times using a bare URL that someone else will need to deduplicate and replace with a Cite news template. Several of your more recent updates introduce statements of facts with no citations at all. Do you understand what it means to properly provide citations, and how you have generally refused to do so, reacting with cries of victimhood and attacks against people who have made well-founded criticisms of your behavior? White 720 (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, you used the {{Retired}} template and not the {{Semi-retired}} template. When two editors discussed it, you went after both of them claiming you were semi-retired. Now we have this whole side discussion going on where you claim that Jauerback and Fork99 have both attacked you for discussing your retirement/semi-retirement status, then a double down that Fork99 "mildly attacked" you for making a comment, and multiple claims against Danners430 that are inappropriate in my view. I believe that the law of holes applies to this situation. My advice is for you to change your retired template to semi-retired if you are going to just semi-retire and to avoid articles that are tied to WikiProject Aviation if you want to avoid the issues that led to this discussion. If you are otherwise going to retire permanently, then accept whatever decision is decided here and move on. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will heed your advice. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this toxicity needs to stop, but I dont agree that Danners430 has damaged wiki ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

unsure if you are aware but your comment has dissapeared from the discussion, i cant find anyone removing it so dont know what to suggest. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Funny enough, you removed the comment yourself Jabba550 in this edit when you were trying to move your comment. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Shoot, feel free to trout, Did not mean to do that... Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I figured you didn't mean to. (If you want, there is a {{self trout}} template.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Support a T-Ban on Aviation Given the disregard for reliable sources and battleground mentality displayed above. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:17, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

GIven your response and @White 720:'s evidence of the same behaviour at other topics I now move to Support an indefinite block of Vanguard1-+0. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 11:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Aviation topics for Vanguard10, who is the one who is actually being toxic here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. The Melilla Airport article had only a few minutes of discussion then it was brought to ANI, totally improper. ANI specifically states "This noticeboard is for reporting urgent behavioral incidents or issues that require administrator intervention. Do not use this page to resolve content disputes. Content disputes should be addressed through dispute resolution processes." Vanguard10 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting I've blocked @Vanguard10 31h for the above as well as their disregard for core policies. THis does not preclude the t-ban proposal or any other outcome from proceeding. Star Mississippi 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Besides that, they seem to be supporting tbans for anyone against them. also The Bushranger is also male. It's on his user page. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 04:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10 has posted this on their talk page:

I have learned that in WP, if you are falsely accused, just suck it up and do not respond, if possible. Therefore, I am violating that principle by responding. However, I will not talk at ANI now.

This is raising two red flags… first they’re choosing not to respond here. Fine. But second, even after the numerous editors both here and on their talk page explaining in great detail the problems with their editing, they still fail to recognise the issues with their editing.

@Vanguard10 - as has been stated multiple times… you twice added commentary to a Wikipedia article, even after being explicitly told not to. You then added content sourced to a source which by your own words was inadequate, yet added it anyway. Finally, you simply blanked an entire section without good reason, despite it being mostly well sourced. These are facts, and diffs are above. You are not being falsely accused, you are being held accountable for problematic behaviour. Or are you saying the edits which are linked are in line with policy?

At this point, given the consistent WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour, I too am in favour of an indefinite block. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that a topic ban on aviation is sufficient here; Vanguard10's inattention to site policies spans multiple topics. Recent edits in their history show a variety of statements added to articles with no citation to a reliable source. For example, they claimed that a person had died without citing a source recently, violating both WP:V and WP:BLP (the latter of which applies both to the living and the recently deceased). I'm also concerned with their response to Super Goku V's comment above; they wrote that "I will heed your advice", but only heeded the part about changing their status from "retired" to "semi-retired". I see no evidence that they're going to stop making inappropriate claims, such as that any criticism of their behavior is evidence of "toxicity" and grounds for a retaliatory ban. White 720 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Also of note, Vanguard10 was reported to the edit warring noticeboard in 2018. After responding on the noticeboard, they declared their retirement on their talk page on 2018-05-08, although they continued to work actively on the encyclopedia for the rest of that month before taking a nearly 2-year break from the site. White 720 (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(moved so as to not be in the middle of the discussion) Propose a SBAN Because of @Vanguard10's persistent battleground behavior as seen here: Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger because she/he is weaponizing ANI. Toxicity is trying to weaponize ANI or WP instead of discussion. and I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 for being so toxic and bringing the content matter to ANI within minutes without a genuine discussion. in response to people supporting tban's, and also conveniently "semi retiring" 2 days after the ANI opens reeks of wp:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:23, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• A few notes. StarMississippi's block has expired: as they said themselves, it was lenient. Looking over Vanguard's talk page I'm inclined to simply block indefinitely, given their complete refusal to listen, but maybe this hasn't totally run its course yet? As a side note, User:Danners430, you'd be doing all of us, and yourself, a favor if you would stop commenting here--just stop. And I'm interested in hearing if The Bushranger and/or Jauerback have any thoughts--after all, it's the admins that will have to deal with this again if it happens again. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  It looks like a given to me. User has done a stupendous job of digging their own hole and continues to do so. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not Bushranger or Jauerback, so forgive me for sticking my nose in here! The clear point here and on Vanguard10's talk page is that Vanguard10 believes themself to be the victim here and has accepted no culpability for their actions regarding having added poor or uncited statements. They have definitely had the opportunity to, having responded to most of the relevant comments. At no time have they accepted that their actions were incorrect. Then, Vanguard10 has noted on their talk that their semi-retirement was primarily done to defuse the situation and avoid responding "to every accusation". A refusal to generally engage or accept any blame and/or learn from issues makes me supportive at this time of a further block. Nothing else appears to have worked, and actions so far indicate that Vanguard10 will otherwise continue not hearing us. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Drmies: if WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE doesn't apply it's danged close IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping @Drmies.

  I disengaged when they decided to frame the discussion as You, as an administrator, may ignore me, write something sarcastic, or give a specious response. which indicates to me they're not here in good faith when as far as I'm aware I had no prior interaction with them. I was patrolling ANI and do not edit aviation articles other than incidentally. I'm not familiar enough with their edits to know if a site ban would be a net negative to the project, but they seem distinctly unsuited to a collaborative and collegial editing environment. The block was to stop the name calling and battleground behavior here, but apparently I just moved it elsewhere. Would support a longer block. Have no opinion on @Ritchie333's proposal or whether it's ripe for ArbComm. Can we put all wrestling matches and pageants in airports? Star Mississippi 01:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Vanguard10's most recent talk page edit has declared that any further comments on their talk page about their most recent behavior, with the exception of "good faith comments by administrators", constitute harassment. They are clearly no longer interested in listening, and they are supposedly "retired" for the rest of the year. I remain concerned that they are uninterested in hearing any criticism of their behavior. White 720 (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Copying my response on their talkpage here, Hi, the only reason i came to your talk page was because i was looking through your edits (third the third or fourth time) to make sure i was still happy with my proposal. I agree, support topic ban on Danners430 and Support topic ban for aviation and anything mechanical or business for The Bushranger, Danners likes to revert own talk page so copying his teachings. Hello! is just plain bad attitude, and is the definition of battleground. And even after being told Reliable for booking flights yes - reliable per Wikipedia policy WP:RS no. you added it anyway and after having your commentary addition reverted you added it again . and your claim of "within minutes" was actually 12 hours after the discussion on the talk page began. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep airport destinations These are very useful for me as a reader. We should keep them. And primary sources should be sufficient (link to the airlines flight map). We should not need secondary sources for this. Please do not delete, and if EN WP rejects it at least move it to EN WV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikivoyage, which has looser rules for citations, would be perfect for the destinations list. WV already has articles for many major airports, too. White 720 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikivoyage has repeatedly said that they will not take the destination lists, so this is not a solution. ANI is not the forum to debate what to do with article content anyways. Katzrockso (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Only a tiny fraction of airports meet Wikivoyage's equivalent of 'notability', so dumping thousands of airport articles on them is not realistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Would go in the article about the destination in question I think, not necessarily new airport articles. But needs discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Right. If I may, as an admin on Wikivoyage: What's deterred us from taking this content in the past is the lack of a huge complement of editors such as you have on Wikipedia, who are able to keep this content current. If you all on Wikipedia decide that airport destinations are off-topic, would those of you who are currently maintaining them on Wikipedia be happy to migrate to Wikivoyage along with the material and continue to update and maintain it there (while continuing with whatever else you are doing at Wikipedia)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't see how we could keep this content current on Wikipedia without something ridiculous. I see one suggestion below to try to look up every flight every hour, which seems like too much. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  We apparently have a reputation for keeping these lists current, at least on larger airports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  Much like these destination lists, that statement could use a reliable source to back it up. White 720 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  I base this statement on the information presented by other editors in several of the prior RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

  I will say that I did do some searching after this and found that WhatamIdoing to apparently be correct. For example, the Airlines and destinations at the John F. Kennedy International Airport article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

• I was originally going to vote in favor of Vanguard10, as it did seem a bit early for an ANI considering it had only been (at least according to the original comment) one article that was affected. It seemed more like a WP:RFC issue to me. However, after reading the whole thread, I am changing my opinion to supporting a WP:SBAN for Vanguard10. They have shown many violations of WP:CIVIL and seems unwilling to accept any responsibility for flawed edits in this thread. This seems to be verging into a potential WP:NOTHERE situation, which is why I support the SBAN.

• Support a topic ban on flights (1st choice) or a site ban (2nd choice). I still prefer the topic ban as they might be a better editor outside of this crufty dumpster fire area, but I'm not highly confident enough about that to be against a site ban, and I'm definitely against this simply drifting without action, likely leading us to have to do all the folderol and fiddle-dee-dee over again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support a site ban. Vanguard10 exhibits tendentious editing in other topic areas as well - bludgeoning discussions, casting aspersions, lying about the issue, disruption to make a point, etc. (Lengthy examples here, here, and here, if you're bored, plus a bad-faith AfD nomination as an attempt at forum-shopping). A topic ban on aviation would only shift this behavior to other areas. The last time their disruptive behavior was examined, they retired - and then returned. The phrase "net negative to the project" comes to mind; this retirement should be enforced. If they want to return, they should have to explain how their behavior will change. --Sable232 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on a ban for Vanguard10? As of their most recent talk page edit, they estimate a 3% chance of coming back to the site or a 97% chance of being permanently retired, down from 30%/70%. They do seem interested in the question being discussed below about whether booking engines should be reliable sources, and they have some worthwhile things to say about it on their own talk page, although I remain concerned about their ability to remain a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, for reasons listed above. White 720 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

People who suddenly talk about leaving often come back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support for the Topic Ban: I do assume that Vanguard10 will probably come back sometime in the future. Regardless, the disruption that Vanguard10 has done seems to be limited to aviation outside of this thread. I feel like removing aviation as a topic would give Vanguard10 an opportunity to edit elsewhere should they return. And if they cause more trouble, then we have given them enough Rope. (Regarding the Site Ban, I consider myself to be neutral to it and would only be considered in Support of it should the Topic Ban fail to achieve a consensus for it. Something should be done here, but I would prefer it be the Topic Ban.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• They’ve done the same before, they were reported to the edit warring noticeboard and then “retired” (continued editing for the rest of the month) and came back after 8 or so months. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban for Vanguard10. I had to read through some unpleasant exchanges to be sure of the depth of the problem. Sometimes when an editor complains at excessive length about "toxicity" it is because they are toxic, and are leaving an odor where they edit, and then complaining about the odor. Sometimes an editor who repeatedly proposes topic-banning their opponents is really an editor who views the community as their opponents. Sometimes when an editor has a long history of saying that they retiring from Wikipedia, under circumstances that appear to be gaming the system, the community should enforce their retirement. Sometimes an editor who appears to be a net negative appears that way because they really are a net negative. This is such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose bans as it is unclear to me who is in the wrong. Content disputes, where the position of the community is unclear, should not generally be decided by banning one side or the other. Get consensus around appropriate sources and structuring of this content, and than if issues persist those not following consensus can have action taken against them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  bit of late response but I believe that the sanctions suggested are for the behavioral disputes and the retirements and the battleground behaviour from vanguard. Jabba550 Message me ✉ 10:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it time for Arbcom?

Above, I see someone saying "It's more disruption in the airport topic, a notorious area of this encyclopedia where people constantly bring in poorly sourced flightcruft." I don't fancy going and wading through the various quarrels I have seen myself, but two that come to mind are List of United Airlines accidents and incidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Mauritius destinations (plus the associated deletion review) simply off the top of my head.

If people are abandoning the topic of aviation out of exhaustion, it sounds like we've got a serious problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• User:Ritchie333, bro, just become an arb already: it's tons of fun! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• After reading the above, I'm glad I'm not a likely arb; you folks carry responsibility well. I agree that this topic might reasonably be considered contentious because of the A) constant and reckless insertions without high quality sources, and B) the likelihood of mis- or disinformation which may have a sizable influence on various markets. When we get this sort of thing wrong, it looks bad for everybody involved. Not quite BLP but this is becoming a real issue. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Okay, having just seen another incident that involves a) aviation b) Danners430 and c) edit warring and personal attacks, I'm thinking it may well be time for an arbcom case, if the evidence is there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  Given the ongoing back and forth below, what do we think... I don't have any experience at all with ArbCom, so I have no clue if this should go there or even what the question might be Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think that writing clear documentation would help more. I don't think we can solve the behavior side until we have agreed-upon rules for the content side.

  For example, I looked at the Manchester Airport list. https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/destinations-and-guides/ (an official, primary, non-independent source) has the complete list of destinations. But that source doesn't display them in a destination-plus-carrier format. Consequently, that source could be used to say that there is a direct flight from Manchester to Athens, but not that there is a direct flight to Athens on Aegean Airlines (=the full claim made in the table). Would it be better to change the format of the article, or to look for a source that can support the destination-plus-carrier claim?

  The airline website has a page https://en.aegeanair.com/destinations/route-map/ where it's very easy to determine that this airline flies directly between these two cities. Years ago, we had instructions in pages like WP:CITE about how to format a citation to (e.g.,) a database when you couldn't provide a deep link that went straight to the necessary information. (Basically, you wrote the ordinary information and then added a note at the end with instructions about what to click on or put in the search box. In this case, "Click on 'Athens' on the map. Click the toggle to limit it to 'direct flights', then click the button for 'Europe'. Click on 'Manchester' on the map.") I can't find those old instructions now, but would that be acceptable? That's ultimately a content decision, so ArbCom will stay away from it.

  On the behavior side, one possibility that ArbCom can't really enact for general use would be a "No lazy blanking" rule. In other words, if you personally know that this information is supposed to be WP:PRESERVED per policy and community consensus (and you do), and you personally know that this claim could be verified (and anyone reading the previous paragraph does now), then you personally can't blank it on grounds of being uncited. This is "common sense", but it's also a way that WP:CHALLENGE and WP:AFD occasionally get weaponized by a few frustrated editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  One of the things I suggested way back when the RfCs were held was instead of having a comprehensive list of airlines and destinations, we could have a list of destinations and a separate list of airlines; or alternatively a statement like “Airport X is served by 25 airlines serving 150 destinations”. That allows us to use pages like the Manchester Airport source (which would explicitly verify that statement) without too much bother. We could even add a destination map (which many articles already have), since again that’s verified by the list of destinations. That statement could be tailored to the available sources for that airport.

  Alternatively, a table of destinations without carrier details, perhaps sorted by country - similar to how airline destination lists are structured. There are options, I think it’s worth exploring them.

  As to the comment about removals… I dispute that removing unsourced content is blanking - and PRESERVE doesn’t override VERIFIABILITY, they sit alongside one another. Given there have been countless editors, including well-respected administrators, who have confirmed that these removals are explicitly permitted by policy, I can’t fathom why you keep going back to claims that they somehow breach policy. If ArbCom decide something else… well that’s literally why they exist. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that we (not ArbCom, but the community) could decide to change the WP:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations section to oppose what I labeled "lazy blanking" above. For example, WP:PRESERVE recommends "Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself", and that recommendation could sit alongside WP:V's CHALLENGE process by having CHALLENGE recommend against removing uncited content if you (i.e., any editor, not specifically you) personally know that a source exists or have a good reason to believe that you could easily find one. We've talked about it off and on for years. It might not be perfect; for example, there's the enforcement problem of not being able to read someone's mind to determine whether they were being lazy or if they genuinely didn't know about a source. But fundamentally, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, so if an editor happens know that a source exists, then removing verifiable, uncited information from an article merely because someone else hasn't already added the source that the blanking editor knows about – well, in my opinion, that editor is not suited for participating a collaborative project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  Feel free to open such a discussion - but I would fundamentally oppose it. My view is, and has always been, that unsourced content has never and will never have a place on Wikipedia. It fundamentally goes against one of the pillars of the project - and putting obstacles in the way of removing unsourced content threatens that principle.

  If editors want content to be in the encyclopaedia, then provide the sources for the content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:55, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, it would represent a change to our policies, and thus have to be discussed. But if you think about the extreme versions of this, e.g.,:

  • A: Did you see this morning's news? I must have read five news articles about his death.
  • B: Yes, and I just updated the Wikipedia article to say he died.
  • A: Reverted! You didn't say what your source was!

  I think we both agree that's bad behavior rather than someone upholding our fundamental values. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  Er no - indeed you’ve just described a rather serious BLP violation, where an edit is made to a BLP article without a source… and a pretty major one at that too. Sometimes suitable sources are simply not available - we as humans see news in umpteen places… not all of those meet WP:RS.

  Simple concept - if an edit is made and no source is provided, the edit should never have been made in the first place. Period. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:10, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  If "A" just read five reliable sources saying this, then why should "A" blank the accurate, verifiable content instead of pasting in a URL from one of those five reliable sources that they just read? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  There’s nothing whatsoever in your example that says reliable source. There are plenty of people, myself included, that look at unreliable sources as well as reliable sources, when not on Wikipedia. Also, what is it people simply don’t understand about WP:BURDEN? It’s not bad behaviour… it is literally policy.

  This conversation has already crossed the line into whataboutism though, so I suggest we stop. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 23:23, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

  Notice the words "five news articles" in the first line. News articles are generally considered to be reliable sources for statements about whether someone has died recently.

  BURDEN does not require a source at the time of the material being added. In fact, when WP:V requires the inclusion of inline citations, it never specifies a WP:DEADLINE by which this must be achieved. The policy says that all material must be verifiable, some of it must also be cited, and there is no specified deadline for getting the citation added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm active, but less active than Danners430 on aviation articles and for the exact reason you mention "abandoning the topic of aviation out of exhaustion" I have ditched almost every non-United Kingdom airport article from my watchlist. There is definitely something here that needs fixing. Credit to @Danners430 for persisting. I'd love someone with big stick (Arbcom?) to come along and ban then remove airport destinations lists in their current cruft-magnet form. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't decide on content, so it certainly won't overrule the community consensus that these lists should stay. Katzrockso (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, ArbCom would not (I should hope!) have the power overturn the established consensus on the lists. However if listing the topic area as contentious helps to keep away both intentionally disruptive, and good faith but inexperienced editors who aren't aware of all the back of house discussions that have shaped the consensus, then that could help to reduce the amount of questionable or unsupported edits and number of disputes that are escalated to AN/I. I am open to anything that helps make it easier for us all to keep these articles (and lists) up to date. I do think that if editors are feeling exhausted, consider stepping back a bit or narrowing their scope - I keep mostly Australian airports on my watchlist and find keeping this smaller subset up to date is much more manageable. There are still a few long term editors in this space who are not as prolific as Danners430, and will share this load across smaller subsets if given the space to do so. Dfadden (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Before ArbCom?

Ritchie333 asks: Is it time for ArbCom? Is the question whether an ArbCom case is needed about editing of airport articles? The mission of ArbCom is to resolve conduct disputes that the community is unable to resolve. There have been too many disputes about the editing of airport articles for years. In particular, lists of airline destinations have been a recurrent subject of disputes over a period of years, of which the Air Mauritius dispute mentioned by Ritchie333 is one of the more recent. So this appears to be a topic that the community cannot resolve.

However, before we ask ArbCom to accept a case on airline destinations and airport articles, we should ask what ArbCom is likely to decide if there is a case, and then ask whether the community has one last chance to resolve the issue before ArbCom. What ArbCom will do is to review the history of these disputes in a deliberative quasi-judicial manner, and then impose either or both of two types of sanctions, which are sanctions against disruptive editors, and a contentious topic designation for a topic. The community has the same power as ArbCom to impose either or both types of sanctions. In particular, community-enacted designation of a contentious topic now has the same force as ArbCom designation of a contentious topic. Is it likely that the community may be able to impose either type of sanctions by community action before asking ArbCom to intervene, and would such community action be effective? My answer to that is that it depends on which type or types of sanctions the community thinks are needed.

ArbCom procedures are designed to be more effective at identifying and sanctioning disruptive editors, and the community has elected the ArbCom to do the difficult work of reviewing the history of a topic. If the community thinks that it is necessary to determine which editors have been disruptive, that is what ArbCom is for. On the other hand, it doesn't require a detailed review to determine whether a topic is contentious, that is, whether a topic is frequently edited disruptively. So the question is whether we, the community, think that declaring airport and airline articles to be a contentious topic will minimize conflict, or whether we think that collection and review of evidence are needed to identify and sanction specific editors.

Another way of viewing the question is whether we are willing to have the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement deal with disruptive editing, or whether we think that an ArbCom case is needed.

The one thing that the community can try, before asking ArbCom to deal with the case, is a contentious topic ruling. Is that our last community action, or do we need ArbCom to identify and act against offenders? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

We had a few big RFCs on this subject. Is there a single page that summarizes the results? It would be easier to address these disputes if there were an "official" page that says something like: "In airport articles, a destination may be included only if it is accompanied by an inline citation that is not any of the following: example, example, example. Preferred sources include example, example, example." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with WAID. If we can solve this content disagreement we can hopefully solve this dispute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

By "this content disagreement", I assume that Doc James means whether and when airport destination lists are permitted as article content. I think that, as WAID says, we have had previous RFCs on the subject. So I have a few more questions:

• Is this purely a content dispute, or is this a content dispute that is complicated by conduct by some editors?
• Will resolving the content dispute be effective in resolving the conflict?
• Is it also necessary to take action to deal with the conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Don't you think that if this was purely a content dspute without cnduct issues, this would have been closed long ago. If people are suggesting Tbans or getting blocked, if admins are suggesting bringing it to ArbCom, then it seems rather unlikely that this is "purely a content dispute" or that it is not "necessary to take action to deal with the conduct issues". Reading the above discussion before asking such questions would be helpful. Fram (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Fram - Maybe I was too subtle. I had read the previous discourse, and I know that disputes about lists of airline destinations have been recurring for years, and I didn't think that there is a simple content dispute. I see that a few editors are optimistic that a new RFC will resolve the issue, but I am not one of them (not an optimist). I was trying to ask whether the community needs to decide that airline destinations are a contentious topic, but maybe I was too subtle. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Here is one recent RFC regarding airport destinations lists and there was no consensus. Would recommend another RfC to hopefully get to consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotta agree here, we need an RFC to reach a consensus because the disruption that not having a policy laid out is causing is pretty bad. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Should airport articles list full and complete lists of destinations reachable from the airport, or to what extent should they be curtailed? is the wrong question to ask. The idea of "curtailing" these lists is absurd. What we have now is a mix of complete lists for some airlines and incomplete lists for others. Wikipedia is intentionally, at minimum spreading misinformation – I would say that it's actively lying to its readers – which is favoring some airlines over others and awarding them competitive advantages in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia should either make its best efforts to maintain full and complete lists, or not have these lists at all – there is no acceptable middle ground.

Additionally, if it is decided to retain some form of destination tables, it is my intention to have a further RfC to agree upon sourcing requirements for these tables, as this point too has been the subject of sometimes heated debates. No, this is not just a secondary concern. This is the key question, which needs an RfC to decide now. If we can't get a consensus on this, we simply cannot include these lists in airport articles. My browser counts "sourc" occurring in that RfC 308 times, and "reliable" 44 times. Yes, Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources, but these seem to often be difficult to find. In which case, we should be able to fall back on reliable primary sources until good secondary sources can be found. There seems to be some doubt over the reliability of airline booking engines or their websites. I can't recall ever booking a flight and then later being told, "sorry, our system made a mistake and offered you a flight that doesn't exist". If booking engines can't be trusted, then what can be? The idea that getting information from a booking engine is "original research" is also crazy. Airlines conduct original research to study the potential profitability of a route before they offer it. It's not original research to simply cite a published fact, even if the publisher is the primary source. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So what you are saying is forget about one of Wikipedia’s fundamental pillars, reliable sourcing - let’s just put all the routes in regardless of whether reliable sources can be found? I’m sorry but that is absurd. If there are gaps in coverage, it’s because there are no reliable sources, or nobody has gone out to find them. This is why WP:TRUTH was written. As for the RfC - the second RfC regarding sourcing requirements was held, and the result was nearly unanimously to permit primary sourcing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, well, thanks for linking me to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements. Let me study that, and get back to you. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

For context, the decision to split the RfCs into two was discussed at length during a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion, and was done specifically to focus the discussion and try to stop it growing arms and legs - one discussion on the fundamental question as to whether the lists should stay at all, and a second one to overturn a previous (in my opinion silly) consensus to ban primary sourcing in said lists. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

For context, I recall seeing this RfC, and was under the impression that was still the most recent discussion on that matter, and your recent edits to airport articles didn't disabuse me of that mistaken impression. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The RfCs are all recorded at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, which also tries its best to summarise them along with other general consensus. The outcomes of the two RfCs didn't change my editing style all that much... I already didn't remove primary sources, as I was working towards that RfC. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

(Thanks for the reminder that we need to deal with RFCBEFORE. That shortcut points to a section that's about how to not have an RFC in the first place. It is not about pre-discussing whether to have an RFC and/or how to phrase the question. But I've spent a couple of years telling people that they're using it wrong, and I'm giving up. I think the assumption that RFCBEFORE is similar to AFD's WP:BEFORE is just impossible to overcome at this point.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058, the problem with booking engines is that they produce search results, which means that nobody can look back at the same page later to determine whether the claim was verifiable at the time it was added to the Wikipedia article. From the prior RFCs, I think most editors accept using booking engines informally (e.g., to double check whether you've got an accurate list), but do not want to WP:CITE booking engines (or any other websites with ever-changing content).

Additionally, most official airport websites seem to contain a complete and up-to-date list of all destinations, so it's not necessary to using booking or tracking sites. Just cite the primary source and be done with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

So if it is "nearly unanimously to permit primary sourcing" for this material. And folks can cite both airport websites and airline flight route maps, is this not enough for a comprehensive list of destinations? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Plenty of airlines publish route maps, as do airports. There are also press releases by either. All of those were prohibited by the previous consensus, which is what the second RfC overturned. WhatamIdoing is referring specifically to booking engines, not route maps or press releases. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay so route maps from airports and airlines are now permitted as sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Aye, as long as you're not having to search for stuff (the booking engine issue WhatamIdoing referred to above), although even that would appear to be contentious in that I believed there had been an RSN discussion about them but can't locate it... On the flipside, a bad example of a route map would be Alaska Airlines (an example, just purely because it was the first one I found), which isn't a true route map - it's a search engine with a map attached... , or what British Airways call their "route map", which is just a list of destinations. That's fine... but it doesn't tell you where they fly from to get to that destination... and when you do eventually select a city, what's hiding... a booking engine. . A good example would be LOT, which is a true interactive route map showing you exactly where they fly to from each airport. . Provided you select non-stop and untick partners that is... Point being I suppose that yes in principle they're fine, but as with any type of source that's not a blanket statement! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Sources properly archived by Internet Archive hopefully will solve verification issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

But the problem we're trying to solve is how to cite where airlines fly from & to today, not on some past date. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed... and still a problem to this day. One of the reasons why I voted to get rid of these lists in the first of the latest pair of RfCs. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:07, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 499#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes? – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

A rather ill-conceived RSN discussion, since it put three very different sources in a single discussion... I learned from that and later initiated a separate discussion for FlightRadar24 - the other two were less of a concern, so I haven't yet bothered. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 231#Airlines and destinations, from 9 years ago, and still not solved (: wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17 § RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables – The result of the discussion is that Option B should be implemented: references must be provided, and "searchable" websites are suitable for such references. Almost everyone agreed that WP:V was a priority, but more people felt it was acceptable that references didn't need to be perfect to be useful. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC) – So what's the problem with searchable booking engines? Was that 9-year old consensus subsequently overturned by a later discussion? wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I never even went that far into the archives! As I said earlier, I was positive that the case of booking engines was discussed more recently at RSN (arguably the more appropriate venue) - however I personally can’t find the archive, which is why I recently stopped removing them when I do my cleanups. The main reason I haven’t started a new RSN discussion since then is I’m limiting my involvement atm due to illness (I hate man flu!) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

More recent discussion, two months ago: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 520#Airports/airlines as a source? wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that wasn’t it… I do recall that thread, wasn’t specifically about booking engines. I have a feeling my memory may simply be faulty, which isn’t exactly beyond belief! If I find some energy I’ll start an RSN discussion broadly around booking engines, as I do still feel that they shouldn’t be getting used. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem with limiting booking engines is that it's too damn hard to find viable alternatives! wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Then why are we continuing this discussion at all? If we cannot find reliable sources for content, then it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia… it really is as simple as that. If that means lists are incomplete, then we either tag them as such, or remove them altogether. Completeness doesn’t, never will, and never should, usurp Verifiability. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Booking engines are reliable sources. Just not sources you like. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

But they have a limitation: Why can’t I find a seasonal flight on the airline’s website? Airlines only sell tickets inside their booking window, which usually extends six to nine months out. A seasonal route that isn’t flying and isn’t bookable yet simply won’t appear in search results, even though it’s coming back. Check again closer to the season, or look up the route on the airline’s site directly. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Yah major booking engines are reliable. I have never seen them systematicaly wrong (unlike say the Daily Mail). That a specific search may not be archived makes them not ideal but I would not say we should ban them/never use them. We have a source call uptodate.com were one also cannot link to a specific version and we still sometimes use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help:

• Please {{cite news}}, including local newspapers and reputable industry magazines.
• Please cite airline and airport websites when the information is available in plain old text (e.g., the long list of cities you can see at https://www.flydsm.com/passengers/flights-and-travel/nonstop-destinations – scroll down below the map, or https://www.allegiantair.com/en/ – scroll down to "Allegiant Destinations - Cheap Flights to Anywhere " and click to expand the collapsed list).
• Try to avoid Travelocity, Google Flights, Kayak (company), Booking.com, etc. As always, any source is better than no source, but these aren't ideal.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

To avoid another discussion like this one, on that last bullet point, I think we should explicitly say not to use booking services as a source. Google Flights has a proprietary repository of flights that end users can’t see. The existence of a flight from airport A to airport B by airline C on date D does not back up the assertion that flights on C exist from A to B on an ongoing basis. Reliable sources should say that routes exist on a published timetable that everyone can see. White 720 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

No. Explicitly prohibiting booking services is why the endless discussions. It was settled 9 years ago to allow them, as a last resort, when a more preferred reference is too difficult to find. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're needing to use those websites, don't just check date D; check dates D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K.

And if you see someone else citing those websites, feel free to upgrade the source to a stronger one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report what days of the week airlines fly specific routes. All that's necessary to report an airline–airports combo, is that the airline flies the route for at least part of the current year. Some routes are reported as "seasonal". – wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Airlines sometimes add one-off flights, such as for major events; should these be included in a destinations list, if the airline does not fly between A and B on a recurring basis? White 720 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I think those cases might better be described as air charter services? How would an airline set up infrastructure (gates, ticket counter, ground agents) for a one-off flight. More common is adding additional flights to an existing route, they'll do that for football fans traveling to road games. But this is a sidebar to the main point of contention. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we list which days of the week are being flown. What I suggest is that if you are concerned that The existence of a flight from airport A to airport B by airline C on date D does not back up the assertion that flights on C exist from A to B on an ongoing basis, then one way to overcome this is to not limit your search solely to "date D". Instead, pick multiple semi-random dates across the next year, and check those. If there are flights "from airport A to airport B" on all of them, then either your random guesses are so impossibly lucky that it would be rational for you to buy some lottery tickets, or you can quit worrying about whether about whether flights are happening from A to B on an ongoing basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

What's happened with this thread is, unfortunately, completely typical for this topic area - we have heated discussion for a few days or even weeks, then little changes or is done and everyone seemingly disperses. And so the cycle continues - the problematic edits in the topic area continue, and I'm willing to bet I'll wind up back at this noticeboard within a few months with a fresh editor who is causing issues. There haven't been any posts here for 12 days... perhaps it really is time for ArbCom - is anyone willing to draft something, as that's an area of the project I have absolutely no experience with? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Lord, I think the prospect of an airline/airports case might be enough to justifiably scare off all potential ArbCom candidates. If I were on ArbCom -- and, hopefully, I never will be -- I think I'd rather hear another Israel-Palestine case than deal with this one! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It would make a good Halloween case then…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Back to the behavioral dispute

I've spent considerable time cleaning up just one of the many airport articles that Danners430 has disrupted by arbitrary content removal: Rickenbacker International Airport § Airlines and destinations. The cargo section was particularly tricky to find sources for, but I managed to do it (ChatGPT helped). I'm generally in agreement with Vanguard10 (who announced their retirement 3 days ago) on this matter. The problem here is that it's fast and easy to tag something with {{citation needed}} and to randomly remove unsourced content, while it takes a lot of time and effort to find appropriate sources and add citations. I think in many cases one can do better (with effort) than falling back on booking engines as a last resort, but the most recent consensus, established nine years ago, is "searchable" websites are suitable references, albeit not ideal. OK, tag something with {{citation needed}}, if you must, but I'd prefer if you put in the effort to find and add the citation instead. This is a problem site wide, not just with airports. There is a severe imbalance of editors creating work for others to clean up, and not nearly enough editors doing the grunt work that the "executive editors" have requested and the inexperienced editors have, in good faith, created. Where I draw the line is with removal of true content, which results in Wikipedia at best, misleading readers, if not really flat-out lying to them. I hope a "boomerang" isn't needed, and we can move on with an agreement:

• Do not remove content because its reference is a "searchable" website. Tag with {{Better source needed}} if you must. Others would appreciate it if you at least try to find a better source first.
• Do not remove unsourced content without first confirming that it's false content. Selective removal of true content harms readers and the encyclopedia, as this is de facto replacement of true content with false content.

Doing either of the above two things is disruptive, because it forces editors who care to immediately respond to correct the problem, rather than deal with it in line with their personal priorities. wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but excuse me? You’re labelling edits which are explicitly within policy as disruptive, and adding a veiled threat of a boomerang for removing problematic content (unsourced content)? I respect you as a long-standing and senior administrator, but I feel you’re overstepping here. If you can point to where I have breached policy, I would accept a boomerang - but what you’re describing above are edits which are explicitly permitted under current en-wiki policy. If that policy needs to change, then so be it - we can go through the process of changing it, and I will abide by it.

I will continue removing unsourced content, as is explicitly permitted by WP:V as it stands. Unsourced content is problematic, and goes against what Wikipedia stands for.

I have already started a discussion at RSN regarding searchable content, as that is the venue to make a decision as to whether a source is classed as reliable or not. I haven’t removed any since coming to the realisation that I couldn’t locate the previous discussion, and have already stated I won’t do so unless agreed at RSN. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I seriously would suggest you strike your comment, in no way what Danners doing is disruptive. Heck WP:V is one of the five pillars. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 21:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed: @Wbm1058:, the only potential boomerang here would be aimed at you. Describing editing within policy (our single most fundamental and important policy, in fact) as disruptive is the actually disruptive act, and can easily be considered to be a personal attack. You may prefer if you put in the effort to find and add the citation instead, but this is not required by policy. If you have issue with this, the correct solution is to start a RfC to change WP:V, not to accuse editors who don't edit the way you believe they should as being disruptive. Furthermore: Do not remove unsourced content without first confirming that it's false content. Selective removal of true content harms readers and the encyclopedia, as this is de facto replacement of true content with false content. This is absolutely erronious and a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as "true content"; Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. Content that is not verifiable through an inline source cannot be assumed to not be "false content" itself, no matter how "true" it may actually be. And as for it forces editors who care to immediately respond to correct the problem, rather than deal with it in line with their personal priorities - No it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 - this is likely the best place for this to go, as it would appear you're now stalking my edits - you've never previously edited DuBois Regional Airport before you restored a large amount quantity of unsourced content which had been added by an editor previously. Your edit summary noted the news source which you restored... while seemingly ignoring the other route being added, which appeared to only be cited to a route map from 2024. First, why have you started stalking another editor's edits, especially one you would appear to be in dispute with (going by the contents of this thread), and second why are you restoring unsourced content? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Contiunue discussing this matter at §Question About Status. My replies are found there. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

We are here to gather the sum of all human knowledge. What destinations and airlines connect various airports in my opinion belong here. And this appears to be the majority opinion. There are errors of commission and errors of omission. Removing something which is fact, even if not currently supported by a high quality ref, results in an error of omission. Rather than hand out fish, we should likely try to get clearer consensus all can agree to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus:

• Unsourced material can be WP:CHALLENGED.
• A CHALLENGE can include removing the material.
• But if you remove unsourced material, sometimes editors will be mad at you.

It looks to me like we've got all three of those elements in play here: Some material is unsourced; Danners430 removed some of it; now some people are mad at him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with that. It's not a good idea to behave repeatedly in a manner that makes others get mad at you, especially if you have thoughts of becoming an administrator on the project (or want to keep the tools you have). Leaving space for other participants in this discussion to sign on. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  And again with the veiled threats… or want to keep the tools you have. I hate to say this, but my respect for administrators abiding by policy is rapidly diminishing while reading this thread. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Good grief. I was thinking about myself, and how administrators should behave, not you, when I added that, for balance. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Understood and my apologies - I’ll strike the above. This whole thread is just wearing me out, which is one of the reasons I was enjoying my absence from it until a few days ago. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

What is included in an article is determined by reliable sources, it's the first sentence of WP:NPOV, not editors opinions. I'm all for including this type of information, but if no source shows that it's relevant my opinion doesn't matter.
As to unsourced information it can be challenged at anytime, and if it's removed as part of that challenge those wishing to include the information must include referencing per policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Good grief, again. You are just repeating boilerplate policy, for the umpteenth time. None of that is under contention, we all agree with that, but it doesn't address the point that's still under contention, the point that policy seems to not have considered. Yes, errors and omissions are an inherent part of the system, but is the policy really saying, "we don't care, at all, about them, go ahead and lie by omission, that's not a problem at all even if you intentionally do it?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm repeating because it doesn't seem to have sunk in. If there are not sources to properly cover a subject don't include it, that's the answer and what policy says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

You can argue that policy is wrong or incomplete, but you can't call other editors out for being wrong by following it. I you want to change policy you have to argue for that at the proper venue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the "lie by omission" point, could that not just be resolved by putting {{incomplete list}} on the relevant sections? QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 16:45, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The Level 3 heading of this section is Back to the behavioral dispute, but are there at least two behavioral disputes? There is a behavioral dispute upstream of here about sanctions against Vanguard10. This section appears to be about removal of unsourced content and is not about Vanguard10. Is this overall section becoming a multi-headed sea serpent, or a great monster with tentacles? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

In the "hope a "boomerang" isn't needed" spirit, perhaps this subsection can be closed without trying to figure out further behavioral disputes, especially as there is a second one on unsourced content below this one. CMD (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

We are WP:NOT here to gather the sum of all human knowledge, in fact, we are explicitly not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. wound theology◈ 12:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:Sum of all human knowledge is generally considered the point. See also Wikipedia:Purpose#Wikipedia's goal, m:Vision, and more. Or maybe drop by User talk:Jimbo Wales and ask about it.

INDISCRIMINATE ("haphazard, random;  heterogeneous, motley; 'an indiscriminate collection' " – mind the gap between indiscriminate and not important) is not in opposition to this. We want the sum of all human knowledge, rather than just the individual addends. For example, we want a whole article about Fictitious telephone number, including examples, rather than a bare, unexplained, disorganized list of numbers. A string of phone numbers is haphazard and motley; an orderly set of phone numbers is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about what Jimbo Wales has to say about Wikipedia, or what that particular essay has to say. Wales' attempts to override consensus at Gaza genocide are evidence he should be relegated to the same bin Larry Sanger is. Wikipedia has succeeded in spite of our founders, not because of them.

Wikipedia simply doesn't collect certain information that are certainly forms of human knowledge: we are not a how-to guide, or a respository of song lyrics, or a publisher of celebrity gossip. Saying we are here to gather the sum of all human knowledge is not an argument for inclusion of anything on the wiki. wound theology◈ 04:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Things like song lyrics and gossip aren't the sum of all human knowledge. An article about a particular song – which can include the lyrics – is. An article about gossip is. "She's dating him now" is one of the addends, rather than the sum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep linking addend and sum, because the latter by definition contains the latter (or if you prefer, addition is invertible, you can always extract the addends from the sum)...and WP:PRIME is simply not policy. The sum of all human knowledge would contain, by definition, indiscriminate information, in a lossless manner since you keep stressing this metaphor. This is, quite frankly, a stupid discussion. There is human knowledge we should not include on Wikipedia. That is policy. wound theology◈ 06:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars isn't policy either. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is "just an essay". Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag, and not every tag convey's the page's worth. Since we are – by official policy – not a system of statutes or a judicial body, we aren't required to put a tag on every page that tells people where in the legal hierarchy is should be ranked, and we can't assume that good information and good advice on an untagged page is nothing.

The sum of all human knowledge does not need to contain indiscriminate information in a lossless manner. There is human knowledge we should not include, but that's because that part of human knowledge isn't "the sum" – the end result, in summary form. "The sum of all human knowledge" means only the bottom line summary, and not the thousands of details that go into forming that sum. We want "Smoking causes lung cancer". We don't want "Smoking causes lung cancer, according to the following thirty thousand medical journal articles, which we will now proceed to describe at length:" "Smoking causes lung cancer" is the sum of all human knowledge about smoking's relationship to lung cancer. The individual bits of research leading up to that point is not the sum and should be excluded. Random, haphazard claims about lung cancer (e.g., "My grandma got lung cancer" or "That celebrity smokes, so he might get lung cancer") is not the sum, and in fact is so far away from being the sum that it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

NB that there is a spectrum that runs from 'sum of all human knowledge' on the one end, through a large middle ground, to the extreme end of 'indiscriminate collection of random unencyclopedic things'. Most of the content on the spectrum won't be included, but only a small bit of that is actually indiscriminate.

(I provide links because a lot of people read this page, and not everyone remembers mathematical terms off hand. It's a way to provide clarity and include people.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

One, explanatory essays and user essays are not the same thing. Two, you keep messing with the definition of sum, despite your previous explicit use of a mathematical definition which is very different thing from a summary. Finally, none of this is related to the fact that WP:PRIME should not be used for inclusion arguments. wound theology◈ 23:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Lying by omission

Doc James is onto something here, I'm assuming from his familiarity with Medical errors § Definitions of diagnostic error. Sorry I was less diplomatic, and used stronger language, but Wikipedia has a definition for lying by omission. Errors and omissions excepted is a phrase used in an attempt to reduce legal liability for potentially incorrect or incomplete information supplied in a contractually related document such as a quotation or specification – or in an online encyclopedia anyone can edit? I guess this is covered by clicking on Disclaimers in the fine print at the bottom of every page readers read. I hope my insurance covers any errors and omissions I might inadvertently make, in the event the Foundation doesn't cover my back.

And you guys are telling me above that this is perfectly acceptable and in line with the WP:V policy? I don't see that policy addressing errors and omissions at all. That needs to be fixed. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

We are a perpetually incomplete encyclopaedia. Errors and omissions are a an inherent part of the system. No change to WP:V can alter that. CMD (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So...

As far as I recall, there hasn't actually been a scheduled passenger flight/airport destination that (a) was actually happening and also (b) couldn't be verified in a source that editors would rely on to come to the conclusion that the flight was happening.

But if you're blanking uncited or (in your opinion) poorly cited information, then you do need to pay attention to the surrounding content. Compare:

• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City^[1] and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City.^[1]
• The destinations for Rural County Airport are: Big City^[1] and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → The destinations for Rural County Airport are: Big City.^[1]
• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City^[1] and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has a direct flight to Big City.^[1]

Some of the way these are worded state or imply a complete list, and it would be factually and non-neutrally wrong to present an incomplete list as if it were a complete list.

Of course, the best approach per the Wikipedia:Editing policy would be this:

• Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City^[1] and seasonal flights to Beachtown. → Rural County Airport has two destinations, Big City^[1] and seasonal flights to Beachtown.^[2]

For most airports, finding the necessary sources to do this is not difficult; in fact, it's probably quicker and easier than having these disputes. As we say at WT:V, Wikipedia:Let the Wookiee win: if someone blanks uncited content, then revert it while adding the missing source.

1. ↑ Mind the gap between 'reliable enough that editors would agree that the flight exists' and 'fancy enough that everyone agrees to see that source cited in the article'.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yup, you've got it. Except that the Wookiee was blanking uncited content at such a fast pace that the editors who might be inclined to let him win couldn't keep up the pace. It takes more time to find and add nice citations, so this strategy means letting the Wookiee win for weeks or months at a time. Check our E&O insurance coverage to make sure they're OK with that strategy. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the jokes about insurance and legal liability are helping people understand your point. During disputes, it's usually more effective to be very literal-minded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Edits like this are very much not what we do on an encyclopaedia. Something either is, or it isn't. Either way it can and should be sourced. Wishy washy marketing speak is very much not acceptable here. You have been here a very long time, with a lot of edits, how is it you don't know this? It feels like, with edits like that, you're being deliberately disruptive at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

When I made my reply to them earlier, it was only after I'd posted that I realised they were an admin. And was shocked that an admin who has been an admin since 2015 apparently doesn't understand WP:VNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. That edit was very much an outlier from the kind of edits I make. The airport's site itself is still promoting itself as a big cargo airport, so it felt weird to report on its loss of service by so many major cargo airlines. I don't know whether there's been much of any independent reporting about that. Anyhow, I'm done with this; it doesn't feel like further discussion will change anything; it is what it is. I'm kind of shocked too, that you guys still aren't hearing what Doc James, WhatamIdoing, and myself are saying. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:TRUSTMEBRO says, "Wikipedia only reports what the reliable sources say; it does not publish what its editors just believe is true." Aviation articles, and in particular the airlines and destinations tables in these articles, attract "trust me bro" sourcing, which is at best easily outdated, and at worst undermines trust in the encyclopedia more broadly. White 720 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is supported by sources, even if they are sources some do not approve off, that is not "what its editors just believe is true". And no one is making the argument that content should be added without sources. That certain people may add certain types of content without references, is not a justification to exclude that type of content entirely even if sourced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

• I am rather appalled at Wbm1058's claims in this entire thread. Not only do they repeatedly argue against WP:V, one of our foundational policies, but they also repeatedly keep claiming that Danners did something wrong by removing unsourced content, which is allowed to be done by any editor. Unsourced content should be actively removed, especially if it's making claims that are not on "sky is blue" levels (which is most everything, honestly, since NOTBLUE also covers even the prior subject). If you are going to re-add such content, then you should do so with a reliable source. The onus is on YOU for adding in material and you should never add in unsourced claims, like Wbm1058 did here two days ago.

The fact that they are an administrator makes the entire situation even more ridiculous and is extremely close to a brightline WP:COMPETENCE question when you have an admin arguing against Verifiability itself. I do not trust any editing done by Wbm1058 at this point. Silverseren^C 22:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I have not argued against verifiability. You're casting aspersions without evidence. I have not argued against removing unsourced content, I have argued against partial removal of unsourced content. If you insist on removing unsourced content rather than tagging it {{source needed}} you should remove all of the unsourced content, as partial removal is what amounts to "lying by omission". You're still not hearing me. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Do you have policy for that? It's unusual for policy to ever require that editors edit. If an editor believes certain unsourced information can be sourced they're under no obligation to remove it, even if they then remove content they don't believe can be sourced. Other editors can always reference or remove the other content if they believe it's necessary to balance the article, nothing says that all problems must be fixed in one go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll expand on the generic approach used above. Airline X has long established flights to Big City 1, Big City 2, Midsize City 1, Midsize City 2, and Beach City 1, none are cited, or if they're cited, they're only cited to a "booking engine" which is claimed to be unreliable. They announce a new, seasonal route to Beach City 2, and this is added to Wikipedia's table of destinations, with a citation to the press release announcing the new service. Some time later, an editor removes all of their established routes from the table, leaving only the new route which was supported by their recent announcement. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information would imply removing this single, random destination from the article. And new service announcements are only reliable sources for the date that new service between two airports began. It's not a reliable source for continuing service. The airline could, at any time, decide their demand projections were off, and drop the service without bothering to even mention the change, other than removing it from their booking engine. A better source for continuing service would be, ahem, their booking engine, or, preferably the airport's website or a third-party source which reliably tracks service changes. I wouldn't be objecting so hard if the entire table of destinations had been removed from the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Problem is, when the routes that are added are added without a source (Or with a poor source), they get a citation needed tag, Which by itself is fine but in cases like Manchester Airport there are just WALLS of citation needed tags, I think that this is something that is going to need a far bigger consensus to come to a conclusion on what to do Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 11:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not how sources work. If a booking engine is checked, then it provides a source for the time of access (we simplify to 24hr periods with access-dates). Its presence thereafter provides no greater signal of continuing service than a one-off service announcement. If the service is changed, then the booking engine reference will be just as outdated as the service announcement reference. In both cases, a source for a single flight at a single time does not make the overall list of routes less indiscriminate, as it doesn't prove the lack of existence of other routes.

This is a very strange case to make an argument about indiscriminate collections of information. All tables of airport destinations will be inherently unreliable for the very reasons you point out. Airline routes are temporal and liable to change. Airline routes are are generally not even directly controlled by the airport, an airport will sell landing slots to airlines that airlines can do whatever they want with, and hub-and-spoke models means passengers go to and come from far more other airports than are listed. CMD (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

One of the content problems we have is that there are two goals for providing a source, and they lead is in two different directions:

• the desire for an ordinary-looking reliable source, such as a newspaper article
• the desire for a source that can instantly prove the current state, such as a flight tracking website

In a prior conversation, I suggested using a pair of sources to address this dilemma: Cityville^{[old news][quick check]} I think this both/and approach would be helpful. However, the main problem is getting any sources at all, and secondarily the problem of the "newspaper" proponents wanting to remove the "quick check" sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

That is not a content problem. The first bullet is an arbitrary category, while the second bullet is not a goal we have as we do not (cannot, due to the format) provide a live service. CMD (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that if you asked a representative sample of experienced editors, they would say that determining the best way to source material in a Wikipedia article should be considered a content problem. This is IMO not different in kind from editors proposing that WP:PAYWALLED sources be discouraged or that certain content requires WP:MEDRS-quality sources WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those are are suggesting we try to get sources to do something which they cannot actually do. This is, at any rate, tangenting away from the discussion on unsourced information, and away from what I wrote above. CMD (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

re: we do not (cannot, due to the format) provide a live service – we could probably write and install a bot to monitor the booking engines daily, or even hourly, to provide a very close approximation to a live service. I suspect the people running the major AI chat-bots may have already done this, so if we endeavor to try to keep up with them, as best as we can... mind you, I'm not volunteering to do this now, as my time is oversubscribed. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

About 4400 airports in the world now have scheduled passenger service. So, we just need to query Google Flights for nonstop flights between each pair of airports (about 20 million pairs), for a variety of dates, once every day or hour or so, then automatically edit articles with neat tables summarizing the results. White 720 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. What I meant was a source that an editor could manually click on if they wanted to check the information. We had several editors doing that before all these fights to remove the sources that they used to keep the articles accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what Google Flights does. You ask it to pull up nonstop flights from airport A to airport B, and if it tells you that you can fly directly from A to B, you can put it in the article. Remember to try multiple days, because not every route is flown on a daily basis. Repeat that 4400 or so times per origin airport, and you've sourced that table. How did editors check all the potential destination airports for each airport before this discussion happened? White 720 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the suggestion is to check every potential destination, just to check whether destinations currently listed are correct. That is a much more manageable task, albeit one that doesn't guarantee completeness.

If you did want to do run a bot task to get a complete list there are optimisations that could be made. As two examples:

• You only need to check each pair once, e.g. if there is a direct flight from Heathrow to Venice but not one to Kazan then you don't need to check Heathrow again when you come to source Kazan and Venice airports.
• If you know the largest type of aircraft the airport can handle (the theoretical maximum should be inferable from runway length and type if not explicitly stated) then you only need to check airports within the maximum range of that type of aircraft. e.g. Guernsey airport can't handle anything larger than an A319, our article on that plane gives a maximum range as 6,940km so airports outside that range cannot be reached and don't need to be checked.

Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Checking only the currently listed destinations raises the risk of errors of omission, which are also errors that we should strive to avoid. In addition, just because there exists a direct flight from airport A to B does not imply that there is a flight from B to A. In some parts of the world, airline routes follow a pattern of serving many airports, with many stops, with the same aircraft. See milk run for examples. In some cases, even though an airport A may include a flight departing to airport B, customers may not be allowed to book just a segment A–B; this may be a positioning flight, or a flight only sold as a continuation of another route, C–A–B. For example, I've seen a short flight listed as departing from SEA and going to PAE, but that flight wasn't bookable by customers; they were required to buy a ticket for ANC–SEA–PAE. If we listed PAE as a destination from SEA, we would not be able to use Google Flights to verify this. White 720 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

• Exhausted, with strategic retreats for all involved °suffice to suggest that were all unsourced content to disappear with a pop and a whistle, within just a long nerd scramble— most would be restored correctly sourced and the project better for it. An inverse tragedy of the commons, well-intentioned, chaotic and lazy collaboration over the decades; and, I'm an inclusionist. /Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Question About Status

This thread was inactive for two days and would probably have been archived without action if I weren't posting this. However, I don't know if archival without action is what the community intends. This thread evolved multiple subthreads for a while, of which two were about conduct. There also appeared to be a discussion about sourcing of lists of airport destinations, for which WP:ANI was probably not the right forum. Do we want to let this thread be archived without action, or do we want to post a request for closure to resolve the conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I think we do still need to resolve the conduct issues so maybe a closure request is the way to go Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 08:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

How about final warnings all around? ~2026-55088-17 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with a closure request for everything above the Is it time for Arbcom? sub-section just so that it doesn't linger, even if no one is warned or sanctioned. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

And a closure for this section if anyone suggests sanctions here, though it might be a few days away. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1235#Reywas92 - Repeated civility failings, aspersions, and refusal to take responsibility for their edits was also archived without a formal closure, although Reywas92 has continued actively editing in October, while the accused in this ANI, Vanguard10, last edited on September 30 and has announced their retirement. What these two threads have in common is that both are about airport airlines & destinations tables, and were started by Danners430 who apparently is abusing ANI in order to accuse editors of disruption in a content matter for which there is no consensus, in order to force their position on the content, rather than attempting to settle the content dispute in a more appropriate venue. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Here we are again, from the same administrator - throwing accusations of bad faith about. who apparently is abusing ANI in order to accuse editors of disruption in a content matter for which there is no consensus - excuse me? In the case of Reywas, they were brought here as a result of their pointy edit summaries. The only time content was brought in was relating to unreliable sources - and there is consensus on that matter, at WP:FR24, as I linked in that thread. In the case of Vanguard10 (this thread), the thread was opened as a result of their repeated introduction of commentary into articles, despite being warned not to.

Unless you are saying that these actions are perfectly fine per policy (they aren't), would you care to explain why you are assuming bad faith on my part and casting aspersions? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Casted ass

Persians

–EEng (an oldie but goodie)

And now Danners430 has casted aspersions at me in this edit summary – show me the diffs, please. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you looking through Danners430's edits to find things to revert? CMD (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Please see my comment further above (courtesy diff) regarding that - and more specifically the follow on correction where I realised I misread the diff, and instead of "plenty of" unsourced content being restored, it was only one piece of unsourced content seemingly being restored. I also noted in the comment above that you have never previously edited that article, so it really does appear as though you've now started stalking my edits. Given the toxicity of your reply to Robert McClenon (at least how I interpreted it), I will be taking a short wikibreak before I say something I will regret later. As with any content dispute (which this revert is), I am open to discussing it - be that here, or more appropriately on the article talk page, on my return. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:07, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It's been about a week since I looked at this discussion or at any Danners430 edits. I've been working on other things, which I'd rather be focusing on. I just checked back here, somewhat expecting this to have been archived without a formal close, just like the previous discussion I mentioned above, but found that Robert McClenon had requested a formal close. It was only that request that prompted me to review Danners430 recent edits, hoping to find that they had "heard" the opinion of those supporting inclusion of this content, and had made a "strategic retreat", and was disappointed to find that wasn't the case. As to their ridiculous claim it would appear you're now stalking my edits, now who is it that's spreading "toxicity" here? You still haven't shown me my diffs. Clearly state the facts in your reverted edit that are not supported by citations. JamesRenard seems just as confused as I am about what your problem is with that edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Sigh… I just can’t put my phone down for half an hour without being brought back. I suppose if I want to have a wikibreak to recharge my brain I’ll have to temporarily disable notifications in the app…

… hoping to find that they had “heard” the opinion of those supporting inclusion of this content, and had made a “strategic retreat” there are two issues with this statement - first, I have never disputed the desire by others to include this content. I may not agree, but the most recent RfC was no consensus and I’m not challenging that. “Including this content” does not, however, give editors carte blanche to add unsourced or poorly sourced content to articles. Second - no, I will not make a “strategic retreat”. As has been pointed out to you on I don’t know how many occasions in this thread so far, I have done nothing outwith policy. Removing unsourced content is permitted explicitly, and not something I will stop doing. If you disagree with the policy, we can open a discussion to change it at the appropriate venue.

You have begun stalking my edits with the edit you are literally just discussing - you’ve just stated that you went into my contributions, and found a page that you had never edited before and reverted a contribution. I rest my case m’lud.

As to that edit - since you insist on doing this here and not on the article talk where content disputes belong… two entries were added to the table, along with an outdated source for whatever reason. Only one of those entries had a source attached (and indeed that remains the case) - the only source against the other entry was the outdated route map, which was sitting in the refs column. As I’ve already pointed out above, I misread the diff - there’s one piece of unsourced content being added, not multiple as I initially thought. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:25, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I rest my case m’lud is uncalled for snarkiness. OK, see Talk:DuBois Regional Airport#Unsourced content being added. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

While nobody in this discussion has exactly covered themselves in glory, wbm1058, your tone here is just as bad as the tone you're accusing Danners of having. hoping to find that they had "heard" the opinion of those supporting inclusion of this content, and had made a "strategic retreat", and was disappointed to find that wasn't the case. As to their ridiculous claim it would appear you're now stalking my edits, now who is it that's spreading "toxicity" here? - those "scare quotes" speak a lot, and what they say is not becoming of someone holding administrative privileges, especially when it's followed up by you accusing someone else of uncalled for snarkiness. Pot, meet kettle. I'd strongly suggest you walk away from this dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:01, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with Bushranger above. The audacity to chastise users for removing unsourced (or poorly sourced) material boggles my mind, especially coming from an admin. And then to seemingly double down on it? Wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:24, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been pretty astonished by wbm1058's responses and attitudes in this thread, and their seeming disregard for our policies is frankly unbecoming of an administrator who is supposed to be a champion for them. I seriously question their ability to be an administrator from their posts here, and that isn't something I say lightly. It's not just one thing, it's repeated pratically denial of policy and then doubling down and attempting to get a rise out of other editors while doing what they're accusing others of. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Are administrators subject to recall for having such an unconstructive attitude? I looked at past cases, and mostly saw references to misuse of admin privileges, which hasn’t happened here. White 720 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Opening a recall petition for misconduct issues unrelated to use of admins tools is not forbidden, although I don't believe it is particularly common either (granted, neither are recalls in general). QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 20:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I've been watching this whole thing with interest from afar because I love airports & airplanes while also seeing what a mess the entire area seems to be on Wikipedia. I saw the arguments and comments made by wbm1058 and was quite honestly flabbergasted to discover that they were coming from an admin. To also be lecturing others on "snarkiness" after some of their own comments here is certainly a choice.

I agree with other editors here: this is quite concerning (to put it mildly). Sigma440 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I can also see the concern on the other side. WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and it recommends adding sources instead of blanking content. WP:POINT is a guideline. It's possible for a 'legal' WP:CHALLENGE to violate both PRESERVE and POINT. (For example: PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can", and if you shrug your shoulders and say "I could fix it, but I shouldn't have to, because that's someone else's problem", then you've violated the Wikipedia:Editing policy.) Different editors, including different admins, to place the emphasis on different policies and guidelines. A champion for PRESERVE will sometimes not look like a champion for CHALLENGE. I don't think that's necessarily a problem. We need to strike a balance between our policies, rather than elevating any one above all else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

To qualify for Preserve, it must meet Verifiability policy. Preserve doesn't override Verifiability, in fact it defers to it. Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Material is WP:Glossary#verifiable if you can find a source for it – not solely if it's already cited. Nothing here has proven unverifiable; it's only been uncited. Therefore it meets the verifiability policy, and the rule "Consider...Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" in the PRESERVE policy becomes relevant. "Fix problems if you can" is our policy. "Too bad, so sad! You didn't say Mother May I? when you added that, so I get to revert your content without lifting a finger to fix your simple mistake" is not our policy; that's uncollegial and WP:POINTY behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

There are no 'legal' or 'illegal' challenges. There have definitely been challenges to whether this information can be verified, and those who return it are under BURDEN to add little blue clicky numbers to it. PRESERVE recommends many things, but it would have to require them to be violated. Reverting edits because you don't like another editors challenge without regard to BURDEN would also seem to be POINTY behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

By "'legal' WP:CHALLENGE", I mean one that complies with the requirements laid out in WP:CHALLENGE. We do sometimes see editors 'illegally' claiming CHALLENGE (e.g., when a reliable source is already cited, but they want one from their pseudoscientific advocacy group instead of from a source that's actually reliable, or when a reliable source is cited and actually does support the material, but they think that WP:OR does not permit us to Wikipedia:Use our own words).

The Editing policy requires editors to "Fix problems if you can". It doesn't merely "recommend" fixing problems. It does recommend that editors "consider" adding a source, if/when that would fix the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not. There is absolutely no requirement to fix problems. They should try, but required? No. You really need to reread WP:BURDEN. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Jauerback, I've helped write BURDEN. What I want you to recognize is that the Wikipedia:Editing policy says Fix problems if you can, in the imperative. It is a demand, not an optional suggestion.

There is a lot of room in "if you can" (e.g., I can't right now, or I can't because that would mean not doing something more important), but the policy actually says "Fix it" and not "Well, maybe you should try. Sometimes. If you feel like it. But it's okay to just blank stuff that isn't perfect, because the other guy should have done it all perfectly on the first try, and you shouldn't ever have to help people." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Removing unsourced text is a valid method of taking on a burden and fixing a problem, even if it sometimes may not be "perfect". CMD (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is difficult a concept?

• If you see uncited content and you can state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable (to quote the CHALLENGE policy), then removing unsourced text is a valid way of fixing the problem.
• If you see uncited content that you believe is verifiable, but you're mad because you think another editor unfairly removed "unsourced" content (to quote the POINT guideline), so you want to "teach them a lesson" by removing even more content, then removing the unsourced text is not a valid way of fixing the problem.
• If you see uncited content, and you remove it with an edit summary or a talk-page comment like If you're going to add content like this, then you need to stop being lazy and cite a source like this one I was just reading, https://news.com/article-on-this-exact-subject. I'm taking this away until you cite a source yourself, because I shouldn't have to format the source for you, then that's not a valid way of fixing the problem, and you're WP:NOTHERE.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Not sure where these very specific hypotheticals are meant to lead. It is definitely not difficult a concept: removing unsourced text is a way to fix a problem. CMD (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Removing unsourced text is a way to fix some problems. It is also a way to cause some problems. Both outcomes are possible. Removing unsourced text does not always fix a problem. Whether any given act of blanking is "fixing" or "problematic" depends on the content, the motivation, and the realistic/plausible alternatives.

In this discussion, we have an admin being criticized for saying that (in their opinion) some edits blanking some airport/airline content is not "fixing" anything, and is in fact (again, in their opinion) on the "problematic" side. As you would expect, editors who want to remove that content disagree: they are focused on their unalienable right to blank anything that doesn't have a little blue clicky number after it, and sometimes even things that do. I encourage you to imagine a world in which neither of them are wrong.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Outside of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL issues, there are no circumstances where removing unsourced content is disruptive. We don't want to shift the burden from the person who added the content, and who should have added the source they were using at the time they added the content, to those reviewing the content; it takes far less effort to add the source in the first place than it does to find the source afterwards.

If airport editors want this content, then they need to make sure it is appropriately sourced. If they can't do that, then it can and should be removed. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

There are no circumstances in which removing unsourced content is disruptive, except for all the circumstances in which it actually is disruptive, which include but are not limited to:

• when the editor is trying to prove a WP:POINT
• when the editor isn't being WP:CIVIL
• when the editor is selectively blanking only unsourced content from the Wrong™ POV
• when the removal is part of an WP:EDITWAR
• when the material in question falls under WP:NOTCITE
• when the removal is WP:OWNERSHIP rather than a genuine concern for verifiability
• when the material is in the lead and complies with WP:LEADCITE
• when the material is a simple summary placed WP:UPFRONT on a highly technical section
• when the material is not required to have a citation per WP:PLOTREF
• when the removal is a sloppy reverts that results in even worse content being on the page
• when the editor personally knows the material is verifiable but thinks they shouldn't have to lift a finger to help out, because their chosen role is bossing around other editors instead of improving articles
• when the editor has decided that "I hereby CHALLENGE everything from here to infinity" is the hill they want to get indeff'd on

I could go on, but the point should be obvious: There are many circumstances in which removing unsourced content is either sometimes or always disruptive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Except, there are circumstances where removing unsourced content is disruptive. In fact, BURDEN even says that you should not remove unsourced content when you think that the content can be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before removing or tagging it. Yes, the person who added it should add the source, but there are plenty of times where a user fails to do so for one reason or another and from novice editors to experienced ones. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes they should try to fix the issue, but they are not required to do so. So outside of behavioural issues, they are editing to make a POINT for instance, an editor shouldn't be blocked for making good faith edits that remove content because there is no policy against doing so. Remove of content is a perfectly valid way to fix a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

So long as the removal doesn't also create problems ("List of three: One."), then I agree in the general case. There are specific cases in which the problem isn't so much the individual removal as the pattern of behavior (whether POINTY or, say, a rigid belief that every single sentence requires a citation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

when the editor personally knows the material is verifiable but thinks they shouldn't have to lift a finger to help out, because their chosen role is bossing around other editors instead of improving articles

This is an uncivil way to put it. If someone has an issue with a pattern of adding unsourced content in a topic area, then there is no issue with them working through that topic area and removing the unsourced content - it isn't "bossing around other editors", it's enforcing minimum standards.

Others are not a significant issue. For example, if someone is repeatedly removing the same unsourced content, then while they should have taken the dispute to ANI or AN3 before it got to the stage they were edit warring, the real issue is the person repeatedly inserting unsourced content.

Also, you have made 31 replies to this discussion. You really should step back before you WP:BLUDGEON it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

That's 12% of the comments here. I'm okay with that fraction.

I agree that if an editor "A" has a pattern of adding inappropriately unsourced content, then we need to address that problem, and that one of the multiple possible ways to do this is to remove the content that "A" added.

Do you agree that if an editor "B" has a pattern of removing content, that this could also, in some limited circumstances, be a problem that we need to address? For example, if the editor "B" quickly removes the plot summaries from hundreds of articles about films, with his sole criteria being to blank any paragraph that doesn't have a little blue clicky number in it, would you say that's just enforcing minimum standards and a welcome contribution to Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

There is an explicit exception to WP:V for plot summaries. The minimum standard there is no references; lets stick to the actual situation here, where the minimum standard is references. BilledMammal (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The actual minimum standard is inline citations if any of the following are true:

1. The content is a quotation.
2. The content has been WP:CHALLENGED ("I hereby CHALLENGE everything uncited in Wikipedia" doesn't count).
3. The content is Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged.
4. The content is contentious matter about a living person (not all content about a BLP – just the contentious stuff).

(WP:V doesn't say anything about plot summaries. We recently talked about it, though. Editors generally consider it to be implicitly cited [i.e., without an inline citation], and to be unlikely to be challenged, though if any of the above four apply, then even a plot summary has to be cited.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Removing unsourced text does not cause FIXIT problems. It may cause an editorial disagreement, but that is not a FIXIT problem. CMD (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

re: FIXIT: Find a problem? Wikipedia wants you to fix it. No need to ask for permission or for others to do it. Presumably, an editor reverting another's edit found a problem with that edit. Let's say the edit updated an out-of date airport flights table but didn't add a citation for a newly-added service. So the reversion fixed the problem of unsourced content, while restoring the problem of an outdated flights table. Are you saying that unsourced content is a "FIXIT problem", while out-of-date content is perfectly fine and thus, not a "FIXIT problem"? If you find a "FIXIT problem", it's OK to replace that FIXIT problem with a different FIXIT problem? Is there a priority hierarchy for FIXIT problems? Maybe you can explain by giving your definition of the term "FIXIT problem". – wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I did say the things I did say, and did not say the things I did not say. CMD (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I have yet to see an editor blocked for the good faith removal of unsourced information, however editors will get blocked for the continual addition of unsourced information, good faith, or not. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:18, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

One of the paths to blocking for an experienced editor is:

• blank, blank, blank, blankety, blank, blank
• community eventually loses patience
• community decides your blanking is bad faith and blocks the editor.

Therefore persistent blanking (sometimes) leads to blocking, but only to bad-faith blankers – because any experienced editor who gets blocked specifically for this gets labeled as acting in bad faith at the same time.

A more common outcome, though, is a block for edit warring, a loss of reputation ("Ugh, it's him again"), or WP:CIR (I'm reminded, e.g., of editors who have provoked comments like "an interpretation of sourcing requirements that does not align with the consensus"). For example, I checked the block log for one of our more notorious blankers, and he's been blocked four times for edit warring. I expect that investigation would show that it was four times for edit warring over injudicious blanking, but we don't say that part out loud; we claim that the block is due to some other reason, and pretend that the blanking part is just incidental. But in fact, if we didn't tell editors that they have an unlimited right to blank uncited content, many of these edit wars and other problems would not have happened in the first place.

For newer editors, the usual path is blank, blank, blank → an admin decides you're a POV pusher who is WP:NOTHERE and blocks you. This is largely because of the difference in the targeted subject area (e.g., an experienced editor will blank uncontentious content in boring articles [example]; a newbie will blank content in a CTOP) and because experienced editors know how many times they can revert before getting in trouble. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe an editor would be sanctioned for "blanking" unsourced content. Even if that is all the editor does then I doubt the community will lose patience with them as removing unsourced content is an essential part of building the encyclopedia.

They may be blocked for edit warring, but that's a different issue, and one that can easily be addressed by taking the person restoring unsourced content to ANI or AN3 as soon as they restore it the second time rather than engaging in an edit war. It's also likely more important to "blank" in a CTOP, as unsourced content is a CTOP is more likely to be problematic - more likely itself to be POV pushing - than unsourced content elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There's a whole section in the vandalism policy called WP:NOBLANK. Blanking (e.g.,) uncited leads, plot summaries, and discographies has resulted in blocks for vandalism, especially for IPs. I know you'd like to see a lot more citations (which is fine), but nobody should think that blanking uncited content confers some sort of magic immunity on the editor. Editors should remove bad content. They should not try to blank anything uncited on the mistaken belief that WP:CHALLENGE overrides everything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

The reason for removing uncited content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, even when an explanation is not provided.

The converse to that is that editors should only add uncited content, aside from the few explicit exceptions. If you're adding content, you should have a source - if you don't, don't add the content, and if you do, provide the source. The issue is with the editor failing to follow that, not the editor removing the uncited content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I think Plattsburgh International Airport is a good example of how we should handle destinations. It presents them in an encyclopedic manner, with prose explaining the development of these routes, not like a database or a travel guide. If all airports did it in this manner, rather than being written as a database and acting as a travel guide like Heathrow Airport is, then we wouldn't have a problem. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

That section of Plattsburgh International Airport amounts to a WP:PROSELINE written in WP:NEWSSTYLE.

As a quick and dirty way to improve it, I suggest removing most of the exact dates (which matter for today's news, but not for long-term encyclopedic summaries) and reconsidering any sentence using the word announce. The encyclopedic bit sounds something like "They have been flying to Fort Lauderdale since 2007". Encyclopedic content does not sound like "They announced something on this exact date". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You might have picked a bad example.

Here I am reading the image as flights from Plattsburgh's airport only fly to Florida and Virginia and back to New York, then I see that Pennsylvania and South Carolina are in the top 10 routes. So I am a bit confused with what the image is actually showing me and which one is correct. Not only that, but the Airlines and destinations section is struggling with having a chronological order. We get paragraphs starting with Allegiant Air, Direct Air, Colgan Air, and Spirit Airlines. Fine. But then we go from Spirit Airlines in 2012 to a paragraph about a restored 1940s aircraft that happened in 2006. Then we jump from 2006 to an unclear date as there was an expansion that happened without saying when within the paragraph because the year was included back in the Spirit Airlines paragraph. And from there we go back into chronological order.

Meanwhile, Heathrow makes it clear the destinations you can go to from that airport and via which airline. I can see some sourcing slippage, such as Heathrow to Detroit via Delta Air Lines having no source, but at least I can figure that out elsewhere. (Such as Delta's website.) The only issue that I could maybe see is that the Operations sections has a sub-section on a third runway that ends with the implication that construction has started, only for the end of the next sub-section to say that said third runway is just a proposal. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The used prose isn't perfect, and it is missing some information (although the table isn't any better), but it's an example of how it should be done.

Unfortunately, Reywas92 has now restored the table, which is really indicative of what the issue here is - the editors who want this content are not willing to compromise in any way, even if it means repeatedly violating WP:NOT.

Meanwhile, Heathrow makes it clear the destinations you can go to from that airport and via which airline

We're an encyclopedia, our purpose isn't to tell you which destinations you can go to from an airport, or which airlines you can take to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There was no community consensus that the tables violate NOT in the last RfC, so your PoV does not share consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

As noted above, this section became a huge wall of text where the current destinations are across the first and ninth paragraphs of the section. This is not a quick read, and this is for an airport with only two current airlines and five destinations! I think a prose history is great and should be encouraged, but it's not a useful compromise that justfies removal of tables; it complements but certainly doesn't replace an easy-to-read table and it is not at all replicable for larger airports. Readers appreciate a consistent table that cleanly shows airlines and destinations. Moreover, your premise is wrong to act like the tables are used only for travel planning or even that someone using this information in a certain way is disallowed. A table concisely shows when airports are served by budget or mainline airlines, used a hub or a spoke, as a commuter or leisure gateway, and much more. — Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• This discussion? "They should have sent a poet" territory. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  I need more popcorn. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: A related discussion has been opened here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  As explained there, it's not actually related. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for a step back

I believe I am uninvolved here with the exception of my temporary block of Vanguard10 about whom the discussion has long ceased to be about. I think a referral to ArbComm is unfortunately a necessity at this stage. In the interim (any volunteers? I do not have the bandwidth nor the experience to file a I know it's an intricate process), can I ask that all participants take a step back? Your particular % of edits is irrelevant. You've all said your piece and it's time to allow for a closure here. This has been running for a month and there is no prospect of a consensus here. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC) ETA I was able to figure out the process to open it. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Airlines and Aviation now exists. If I erred in parties, please let me know. I believe I got those active and not those just clerking. Star Mississippi 03:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Insufficient efforts have gone into developing a list of usable sources for this material in my opinion. Likely we need to go source by source. Have started here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_FlightConnections.com_a_reliable_source_for_destinations_from_an_airport? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Star Mississippi. ArbCom was first mentioned about a month ago, and then the discussion, if it can be called discussion, went on and on. That further illustrated that this is a dispute that the community is unable to settle without outside intervention. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBAN proposal for Ggck2

Ggck2 revealed his true identity with declared COI for editing flavan-3-ol, flavonoid, and polyphenol, among other similar articles. He was indef blocked on 31 May 2026 for disruptive COI editing and lying about his previous name, Ggux, with COI and advocacy on the same articles from 2016 until resigning on 7 Sep 2022. Ggux became Ggck2 three days later (user histories).

The editing of Ggux-Ggck2 shows WP:SPA on the flavan-3-ol and flavonoid articles and talk pages.

• With Special:Diff/1378720744 on 5 Oct, he displayed willingness to edit-war over a talk page topic on a COI article. I had given an explanation declining the request.
• Exhaustive user talk discussions involving admins, disputing his block and appealing for reversal, current and archive.
• Warnings about COI editing multiple times from May to August 2026; examples Special:Diff/1356451426 and Special:Diff/1372176621.

Considering TBAN

1. single-purpose advocacy on polyphenol topics since 2016 as two users.
2. ardent and conspicuous intent to persuade Wikipedia articles and talk discussions to an opinion that polyphenols are involved in nutrition and health (scant evidence, no mainstream acceptance, no WP:MEDRS reviews). The talk pages of Ggux-Ggck2, particularly Talk:Flavan-3-ol since 2021, reveal persistence to promote these views.
3. admitted industry COI, example Special:Diff/1375171310, as a funding recipient and colleague of Mars, Inc. which markets a flavan-3-ol extract supplement called CocoaVia.

Ggux-Ggck2 combined have more than 2/3rds of article edits on COI topics and nearly all talk page edits on COI topics. Why might there be such focused attention on a few specific COI articles? Because the user is promoting his research and publication history, university department, teaching subjects, colleagues, and industry sponsors with intent to align Wikipedia articles and talk discussions to his opinions.

Advocacy: "to promote a person's or organization's beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view."

A neutral editor with diverse scientific and personal interests could constructively edit dozens of articles not related to the subjects of his COI. A polyphenol TBAN may encourage this user to broaden his project participation. Zefr (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

My area of expertise - as outlined on my talk page and indeed my COI statement - is research into flavanols and polyphenols. Some of this research has been funded by a company, the majority of this research however is unfunded. I have agreed, as a condition to the unblock, to have a detailed COI note on my talk page and not edit pages that are directly related to my funded research. Zefr has followed my edits and notably rarely challenged them if they were critical of polyphenols.

• I have made attempts to correct a number of mistakes in articles where I have direct expertise - Zefr has rejected these COI edit requests outright without any explanation (and - from where I stand - without giving me the opportunity to reply to their argument). I have therefore made a second request with more detailed explanation. In hindsight, it might have been better to engage directly, but I assumed a "declinded" request is also closed.
• I have asked my unblocking administrator for advice - I did not "dispute" my block but have simply appealed, as outlined elsewhere
• "polyphenols is an umbrella for your COI" is a statement made by Zefr, which is a statement that is too broad to implement. It is a bit like claiming that someone who received funding from a car manufacturer to develop brakes has a COI for any and all vehicles or modes of transport
• Zefr has deleted - without comment - a contribution to an RfC [] where I corrected some misunderstanding (and also explained that I do not wish to vote due to my COI).

My contributions are supported by the literature and have indeed mainstream acceptance - I try to correct outdated information or provide background to some statements that are factually wrong (with supporting links). The reason why my editing focuses on this area is very simple that this is my area of expertise - and my edit history will show that the edits do not promote polyphenols (I have added some of the statements on adverse effects and excessive health claims).

The accussation of "align[ing] Wikipedia [...] talk discussions to his opinions" is what most editors do, including Zefr. We clearly disagree on the interpretation of the evidence regarding some polyphenols, but I believe this can be addressed in a discussion. Ggck2 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

For context: Zefr clearly believes that I should not edit here, and I believe there has developed a disagreement that goes beyond disagreement on facts. They have opposed that my ban has been lifted and has contacted the unblocking administrator directly to oppose the lifting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rosguill#Your%20unblock%20of%20Ggck2) and used a DRN discussion to outline again why I should not contribute and dismissed my contribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_276#Flavan-3-ol).

I am not interested in any conflict and would simply like to contribute according to my knowledge.

Ggck2 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is a little much here, and I say that as someone who was very unhappy with the evasive conduct earlier this year and expressed so. That being said, Ggck2, you don't want to be treating edit requests like they're a slot machine; once one has been declined, don't just send it back in for more tries until you get the jackpot. When an edit request has been declined, make a short, concise explanation on the talk page where you state your reasoning why the edit improves the article. If it convinces the declining editor or another editor is convinced by your argument and makes the edit on their own accord, great. But if not, drop the argument and move on to something else. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I was not sure what the appropriate approach was (and assumed that a declined proposal is locked). Shall I delete the second request? Ggck2 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

• I am really struggling with this. The whole sorry Flavan-3-ol story has been going on for years (see talk page and its archive), involving multiple RfC's (one is currently running) several third-opinions, and an archived-but-not-closed DR . I believe Zefr to have the very best of motivations, but I've found it utterly impossible to edit collaboratively with them. The DR gives a flavour of what it's like. I don't support actions against either Ggck2 or Zefr, but I've really lost interest in editing in phytochemicals, it's just too unpleasant. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  I think the big problem with many phytochemicals is that it is difficult to distinguish between rather preposterous claims of them curing diseases and explaining research into certain diseases. I wonder whether there could be a solution by having a template or guidance that separates very clearly different aspects - and has a "research" section that makes it explicit that this is ongoing research and should be interpreted as such. I'm sure one could find a suitable threshold (e.g. several reviews) to ensure that this will be proportionate.

  Many articles on phytochemicals are quite outdated and would really benefit from a tidy-up and update.

  This is clearly a discussion for somewhere else - but I don't know which would be the most appropriate place.

  Ggck2 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections suggests ==Research directions== as a possible section heading, with the goal of a paragraph or two that says something like "Research is mainly focused on epidemiology" or "As of 2026, Wonderpam is in Phase 2 trials to see if it is effective for Related Condition". This is easiest to write when you've got a source that summarizes the current state or recommends a particular direction ("The Society recommends that future research transition away from X and towards Y"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support TBAN I find Ggck2's editing on polyphenol related articles and talk pages disruptive and tedious. Ggck2 says they just want to contribute their knowledge but they cant seem to resist wanting to edit articles related to polyphenols and repeatedly submitting edit requests on talk-pages with a POV agenda to criticize Wikipedia articles in this topic area and highlight very tedious statements. Doesn't seem good faith to me, it seems they want to push an angle on this topic. I say banning this user from this specific topic area would do them good to edit other topics areas that they may well be an expert in. I realize everyone has their hobby horse but this users obsession with polyphenols has caused quite a lot of disruption going back months and is soaking up other editors time. There are many other food and nutrition articles on Wikipedia so edit those instead. They have shown they can't be trusted on the polyphenol articles. Carrot juice (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you - but could you please provide an example for pushing an agenda and providing tedious statements? I have tried to follow the conditions of the unblocking as much as possible, I have abstained from voting in the RfC (I did however correct some misunderstanding in the discussion). As is appropriate, I have used the relevant templates to make edit requests and provided supporting information why I believe that certain statements are wrong or outdated.

  In the end, the question is whether subject experts are permitted to edit - in which case they will most likely contribute to a small number of articles where they have expertise in - or whether they are not.

  Ggck2 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  In the end, the question is ... - followed by a badly distorted claim about "the question".

  The question is whether you - as one individual expert with an obvious conflict of interest, a frequent disregard for Wikipedia's COI policy shown by circumventing it, and a documented long history of deceptive practices - should be allowed to continue acting as you have, and if not, then whether and how that ought to be enforced. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 21:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would really appreciate if you could point out where I have disregarded the COI policy since I have been unblocked - I have tried to follow the rules in spirit and by letter, and I'm more than happy to make changes in line with policy. However, I also believe that I should contribute my expertise, especially to improve articles and correct mistakes.

  There is the category of WP:Expert editors - so I assume the idea that an editor might have a narrow area of expertise is commonly accepted. Of course, I could edit other articles, but I do not feel that I have sufficient expertise to contribute much, while I have worked with polyphenols in one way or another for some time and thus believe I can make helpful contributions. Likewise, there is Help:Wikipedia_editing_for_researchers,_scholars,_and_academics which essentially suggests that academic experts should do exactly what I have been doing. Ggck2 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

  They really say you should try to deceive everyone? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

It's astonishing that an academic whose adult education was exposed to an abundance of university disciplines would say "I could edit other articles, but I do not feel that I have sufficient expertise to contribute much."

Instead, the editing behavior has been narrowly focused on just a few topics tightly connected to Ggck2's research agenda, with conspicuous attempts to write unestablished opinions as "encyclopedic". That is the very definition of WP:SPA editing "for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed."

• Support polyphenol TBAN. If the TBAN does not occur, however, a "COI connected editor" tag may appear permanently with your username on talk pages for each of the 9 declared COI articles. A reasonable presumption is that your same research interests will persist indefinitely, as will the COI and SPA on the corresponding Wikipedia articles. If you don't have "sufficient expertise to contribute much", what would you edit? Zefr (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I do object to the language: I was not "exposed" but voluntarily edit under my own name.

My edits are also not "unestablished opinion" but supported by the evidence and fairly mainstream. What I suggest to change are simply outdated or misleading information. Ggck2 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

If you refer to the username discussion, I believe this has been resolved as part of the unblocking discussion. Otherwise, I do not see how my editing could be considered as "deceitful". My edits tried to correct some mistakes in articles - and that these statements are mistakes is fairly uncontroversial (and I have therefore provided references to support it).

Neither you nor @Zefr have explained why my edit suggestions are inappropriate or wrong - they address very specific claims to improve the article and correct mistakes. Ggck2 (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you saying that when you lied about the username you wwre doing an acceptable kind of lying? Or what? TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 23:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed addressed by an administrator. Ggck2 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

For the record, Ggck2 edited as Ggux for 6 years, beginning on 24 July 2016 to cite his own 16 year old rat study (Kuhnle et al.) on the catechin article, Special:Diff/731346681. According to his confession on 13 June 2026, Special:Diff/1359155680, Ggck2 feigned as Ggux to be the lead and only editor representing a research group (347 total edits, July 2016-Sept 2022), violating WP:NOSHARING for those 6 years.

During Ggck2's 3rd appeal to have his block removed, two admins accepted his explanation, while two others (Cullen328, Yamla), objected or gave no support for unblocking. Zefr (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

How could being the "only" editor using that account violate a policy that says one human per account?

We don't have a policy against people "representing" a group; if we did, then every ArbCom clerk or member who posts a notice "For the Arbitration Committee" would be in violation of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Ggck2 wasn't blocked or having unblocks declined because of this reason. This is just the final explanation finally given after a long stretch of repeated lying from this editor. First, Ggck2 pretended they had no idea who Ggux was and tried to claim that Ggux just seemed to be an editor with similar interests. Then the explanation changed and now they had suspicions who Ggux was. Then the explanation was that admitting that he was Ggux would somehow out other people. Some admins didn't have enough trust to give Ggck2 another chance after all this, while some others did.

If the story had just been "I make edits on this personal account of my own accord, but I do talk about the topic specifically with coworkers," then it's unlikely that this editor would have ever been blocked. The editor was given a second chance in the end, but that doesn't mean that all the lying didn't happen before. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Instead of answering to different questions, I think it might be helpful to explain my reasons for editing polyphenol articles. My research has focused on polyphenols for some time, so I think I do have some expertise in the subject, and I would like to contribute to Wikipedia by improving articles where I can actually contribute something. I completely agree that these articles should not be used to promote any preliminary research or make unsubstantiated claims - but I think they should reflect the current state of research and not ignore information simply because it could be misunderstood. Unfortunately, there are some instances where exactly that happened, for example:

• A statement that there is no evidence for a physiological and a statement that there is a risk of toxicity - as could be found on some articles - is a contradiction. Toxicity is a physiological effect and stating this is simply addressing this.
• Whether a compound has a physiological effect (or even a health benefit) is not necessarily assessed by regulatory agencies such as the FDA - the FDA will assess information on application, but for most compounds found in the diet, there are no applications and hence no assessment. This is especially the case for compounds that are non-essential (such as polyphenols) - the current framework for dietary guidelines simply does not include non-essential compounds (with the exception of fibre). However, the FDA is often used as evidence for a lack of physiological effect, which is misleading.
• The pharmacokinetics of polyphenols - my suggested change that precipitated this incident report - is very diverse and the statement in the article were wrong. The information has been outdated for at least 20 years, and I suggested to correct it because I believe that articles should reflect the current state of knowledge.

These are just some examples, and I thought I could help improve articles by adding and correcting information. I'm happy to make suggestions via talk pages - and I appreciate that any editor can reject them, but I hoped that a rejection will be based on factual disagreement. Editing polyphenol (and phytochemical) articles has become very difficult, because suggested changes are rejected in a way that makes discussions very difficult and unfortunately ad hominem instead of factual arguments are used to explain decisions. Ggck2 (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, many phytochemical articles aren't great. Chlorogenic acid for example (1) has sources that don't relate to chlorogenic acid at all, and (2) is using the pre-1976 non-IUPAC numbering system. I tried to get this sorted out, but another editor (actually Zefr) trimmed most of it back out. In consequence we gloss over the whole problem, and Neochlorogenic acid claims the existence of this isomer in plants based on reports using the IUPAC numbering, so the reports actually refer to chlorogenic acid, not neochlorogenic acid. Rutin has a biosynthetic pathway that ends in the wrong molecule, and claims it's a "citrus flavonoid glycoside... found in buckwheat" (citrus? buckwheat?). Anthocyanidin has a completely unsourced table on natural abundance, which in any case has not, to the best of my knowledge, been estimated, because to do so you'd not only need to know which anthocyanidins are found in which plants for every plant in the globe, but also the global abundance of the plants, and quantify the whole thing. Peonidin is a swathe of unsourced stuff culminating in "The higher level of peonidin in fresh fruit corresponds to the rule of thumb that more natural fruit is healthier" (unsourced). List of phytochemicals in food includes white birch and tropical carnivorous plants as "food", which is stretching it a bit, and also refers to flavonoids as "red, blue, purple pigments" which is spectacularly untrue and spectacularly unhelpful wikilinking. But someone else can fix this. I'm not going to edit in an area that is so argumentative, non-collaborative and aggressive, particularly when I end up accused of CoI. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I think in an attempt to prevent articles from being used to promote dubious health claims, even reliable information are removed and all sources are seen with extreme suspicion (it seems in some instances, only the Linus Pauling Institute is acceptable - even though the information are quite outdated); some articles are frozen in time regarding the content. I do understand the desire to avoid preposterous claims - but I think it would be good to accept that there are people with expertise who contribute in good faith. (I also still don't quite understand how contributing would create a personal benefit to me.)

But I agree with you - it is a fairly difficult environment to navigate, and it would probably help improve articles if suggestions would not simply be rejected without the opportunity for explanation.Ggck2 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Elemimele and Ggck2: Please refrain from using this TBAN discussion as a forum for your opinions on the quality of polyphenol articles. This ANI topic exists to consider whether Ggck2's COI, advocacy and SPA focus warrant a TBAN. And Elemimele: the project benefits when editors are bold and just WP:FIXIT. Zefr (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem, @Zefr, is, that both, @Elemimele and I have been trying to do just that. But most edits result in instant reverts and you accused both of us of having conflicts of interest and a hidden agenda.

In many ways, this is relevant here. You have made accusations against me based on alleged rule violations (I believe WP:Lawyering is the technical term), but you have not demonstrated that any of my suggested edits were wrong or misleading.

You have shown elsewhere that you are an experienced editor, but don't have expertise on the subject of some phytochemicals and regulatory aspects of nutrition. Why isn't it possible to work together and use our respective expertises to improve articles?Ggck2 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

• Ggck2 is "happy with a topic ban". Before this gets in the archive queue, note that Ggck2 accepted his polyphenols TBAN with Special:Diff/1357722149 (01:37, 4 June 2026). Given such candor, that confession – made among several admins – should be granted and he should be sent off to strum a ukulele.

The ban should apply to all talk pages to prohibit his tiresome, long-winded contentions pleading for attention, evident from above, his talk page, and numerous article talk pages. His pretentious claims of expertise impress only him and don't matter here; all Wikipedians are equal as volunteers in editing. Zefr (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

The unblock request which was accepted did not include a TBAN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ggck2#Unblock_request_2 Ggck2 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot going on here. Ggck2's activities are quite similar to those of many senior academics, who take cash from public research bodies and also from industry to support their research, and who sit on committees and advisory boards related to their expertise. If that constitutes a CoI, then most academics should not be editing in their own field - which would be ridiculous. The original block appears to be for undisclosed CoI editing coupled with a lack of explanation of the link with Ggux, and did indeed specify that an unblock would be contingent on page-blocks. This was placed by Cullen328 and is one of the very, very rare occasions in which I disagree with them (about the page blocks), because it seems to me that these depended on the CoI being genuine, and the extent of CoI wasn't clear at that stage because Ggck2 hadn't declared its nature and was being shifty about their link with Ggux. The unblock, accepted by Rosguill, centred on sorting out the Ggux sock issue, but included clarification of what constituted a CoI edit; Rosguill said: "I would say that COI concerns would kick in for things like citing your own or your immediate colleagues’ work, or possibly in assessing WP:DUE between counterposed perspectives within the field, but in general you should be able to contribute to the topic." In the face of this, Zefr's complaint that Ggck2 has been editing with CoI is patently false. Rosguill further reminded Ggck2 to be "...receptive to feedback." Zefr has been utterly non-receptive to feedback, and the point of my whinge about the state of phytochemical articles (above) was that Zefr's behaviour here is having a negative impact on the articles. I really hoped Zefr wouldn't bring things this far, but since they have, I suppose I'll have to come back with the full diffs about their behaviour. I'll try to put it together, but this is such an unconstructive task and so unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Elemimele - stay focused on this topic concerning the proposed TBAN for Ggck2. If you wish to start an ANI on my editing behavior, I'll respond in kind to your opinions and diffs, but those should be under a new separate topic from the one focused on Ggck2 here. Zefr (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Zefr, when you start a complaint at ANI, your own behaviour is also subject to scrutiny and is therefore on-topic. We are here largely because you and Ggck2 have been unable to work together on Flavan-3-ol. I had hoped some compromise would be possible. If you ask admins or the community to TBAN Ggck2 on behavioral grounds, someone needs to establish whose behaviour has caused the dispute: yours, Ggck2, or both (or indeed mine, and you have every right to bring that up here if you wish). Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

The main issue with Ggck2 is his advocacy of polyphenols broadly as presumed dietary factors for health and anti-disease activity (far from sufficient MEDRS evidence). Advocacy is closely related to COI, but is more about promoting an agenda, which is exactly the issue with Ggux-Ggck2 trying to bend polyphenol articles into the categories of nutrition and biological activity which are at the center of his professional agenda. See Special:Diff/1372176621 on his talk page in August. Simple solution for him to be an unconflicted Wikipedian: don't edit polyphenol articles. His perceived claims of expertise aren't recognized here.

Specifically for the flavan-3-ol article, he began his push to advocate such effects in October 2018 by citing his own lab research and his colleagues' publications with Special:Diff/865656499 when he was Ggux. The flavan-3-ol article is just one example of his fervent advocacy to change various polyphenol articles to be consistent with the agenda of his university research, nutrition teaching, publications by academic or industry colleagues, and funding sponsors.

You seem to be ignoring the general goal of editing: no one editor controls an article. "The quality of content is more important than the expertise of who contributes it". Talk page discussions are for building consensus for any position, WP:CON, which has been thoroughly tested on Talk:Flavan-3-ol since 2018. Because you may frustrated by talk page outcomes unsatisfactory to you is not a reason to accuse me of having a negative impact. The stale RfC there is an example of inability to convince a consensus.

I'm open to any persuasive argument or edit supported by a high-quality source, which in the case of any polyphenol being discussed as having physiological effects or a health benefit, would require a source at the top of the left pyramid of WP:MEDASSESS (doesn't exist). Zefr (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Three points for clarification:

• I agree and understand that self-citation is problematic and generally discouraged - and this would not have happened had I (and others) been more aware of it. Due to the nature of my work, a number of articles - including EFSA opinions - are co-authored and since this has been pointed out to me, I have always made this very clear. I apologise for having done this before.
• @Zefr states that my editing is an advocacy "to bend polyphenol articles into the categories of nutrition and biological activity". While this accusation is repeated frequently, I don't think there is any evidence for attempting to introduce bias. I believe it is helpful to look at my actual edit request (and not just Zefr's comment on the talk page): I have made a suggestion on the talk page and suggested to add a statement to Polyphenol to refer to the use the antioxidant properties of polyphenols to preserve meat, which is a fairly common practice that was not mentioned . Zefr objected to the reference, requested a better reference and rejected the request. I have provided a better reference and examples of companies using polyphenols in food production - without any follow up. I appreciate that editor are busy and that COI-edit requests take a long time to process - but I don't think this is an example of pushing an agenda.
• @Zefr states "The flavan-3-ol article is just one example of his fervent advocacy to change various polyphenol articles to be consistent with the agenda of his university research, nutrition teaching, publications by academic or industry colleagues, and funding sponsors." I do not think there are any examples of "fervent advocacy".

I do understand that I have made mistakes in the past, and apologise for it.

Ggck2 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

"I have made mistakes and I apologise" is not a fair or logical or legitimate way to say what needs to be said. You were not mistaken; you were intentionally pursuing a contrary agenda.

Maybe try something like "It's clear that my principles are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's principles, and I will never allow my principles to influence Wikipedia again; I will no longer edit or comment on Wikipedia except according to the Wikipedia community's interpretation of Wikipedia's principles". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 19:30, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

In English, the word mistake does not only indicate a guilt-free unintentional action. A person can, for example, be "mistaken" in judging someone's character, or "mistake" a bad situation for an acceptable one. "I have made mistakes" in this context can means "I understood the situation wrongly". For example, if an editor reads the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, concludes that it doesn't apply, and intentionally acts on that basis, then it's possible that their conclusion was mistaken, as opposed to (e.g.,) malicious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

In this particular context, taking everything into account, "I have made mistakes" is either laughably and ridiculously redundant (who could have failed to notice that mistakes were being discussed here?) or is a disingenuous tactic to try to discourage scrutiny. Knowingly flouting the guidelines is neither malicious (which was a red herring) nor a mistake. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 07:17, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologise, this may be quite a long paragraph. I am going to refer to Ggck2 throughout, but Ggck2 was operating as Ggux for part of the time. I am not excusing Ggux's failings during this, but trying to illustrate that this is not a one-sided story. I got embroiled in the dispute at Flavan-3-ol, which begins about 4 years ago when Ggck2 attempted to get the large COSMOS study mentioned in the article; it hadn't yet been published properly so Zefr correctly opposed, but they continued to oppose after publication, and Ggck2 started the first RfC. This RfC garnered luke-warm support from CurryCity and WhatamIdoing but Zefr still wasn't having it, and Ggck2 asked for a third opinion. Amadeus1999 offered a response, also weakly in favour of inclusion, suggesting that Ggck2 and Zefr discuss a wording, but Amadeus then gave up, commenting "I doubt Zefr, you, and I will reach any meaningful consensus about that though.". At this point, with Zefr still refusing inclusion in the face of 4 editor disagreeing, Ggck2 started yet another RfC, followed rapidly by yet another, ending in a complete lack of consensus either way, and WhatamIdoing possibly(??) agreeing that the non-inclusion of the study was a case of "one editor does not agree and does not engage" (quoting Ggck2's words) and suggesting that ANI might be necessary. Everything went on hold for some years, before Ggck2 put the mention back in, Zefr took it out, both of them pointing out that there was no consensus. Ggck2 therefore asked for a third opinion, where GRuban favoured inclusion.

This was where I got mixed up in the situation. Zefr made it clear that their real objection is that Mars would get advertising out of the mention.

So to my mind what we have here is a situation where Zefr has refused to listen to anyone over the course of years. I believe that Zefr has extremely strong feelings about misuse of science to advertise big businesses, and is therefore deeply suspicious of industrially-funded research. But Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Zefr is not willing to accept peer-reviewed sources, even secondary reviews, but prefers to make a personal assessment of whether the paper is good and significant. In terms of BRD, Zefr's does the reversion but refuses genuine discussion, instead simply digging their heels in until everyone gets bored and gives up. When I started a proper mediated dispute resolution, in hopes that finally we could come to some compromise Zefr initially refused to take part

"As this issue has been extensively discussed on the article talk page (Talk:Flavan-3-ol; see years of history), I am not going to participate again. It is also relevant to see the history of the identical user Ggck2 and Ggux (recently unblocked - not justified, in my opinion: WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPA)"

and responded to Robert McClenon's suggestion of a definitive RfC with

"Let's avoid a rabbit hole of yet another RfC debate over just one primary source that is clearly a commercial promotion by Mars Inc. "

It's difficult to see this as a good-faith willingness to discuss, nor an unbiased view of the literature. Zefr then accused me of CoI

"This dispute continues because the two proponents, Elemimele and Ggck2, are professionally involved in studying flavanols; WP:NOTADVOCACY: "Content hosted on Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific ... or otherwise."" Please close the case.""

and Robert McClenon advised them to go to the CoI if they wished to follow up on this - no one did. So now we're stuck, and the whole thing is still in limbo. Meanwhile, I'd also encountered Zefr elsewhere where they'd reverted a reference I added for Withanolides. On its own this is a minor thing, a misunderstanding - firstly they removed it because it refered to withanolides being found in plants used in Ayurvedic medicine on the grounds this is "quackery", and secondly they accused the journal Molecules of being predatory because it's MDPI. I'd point out that I didn't claim ayurvedic medicine works, I just said it's used in it, much as I might say that some tribe used a plant in their peace rituals or something - that's just a social and historical fact, nothing to do with medicine. And secondly, not all MDPI journals are currently regarded as predatory, with our own perennial list of reliable sources listing MDPI as no consensus, and stating that 5% of their journals are predatory, another 5 under review, according to the Norwegians in 2024. My view is that Zefr has consistently ignored consensus, placed their own interpretation of reliability above that of the community, is on a crusade against what they perceive as tainted science, and never compromises on anything. They have an awkward habit of weaponising CoI and ANI to suppress the views of those they see as the enemy. I don't think this is a healthy attitude. I do not want any action taken against Zefr, but nor do I want action taken against Ggck2. Neither has behaved flawlessly here, and frankly it would be a whole lot better if we could actually talk and compromise. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment. I'm saddened by this whole fiasco over what is ultimately a complete triviality. Elemimele (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Side note: There is a similar discussion involving Zefr's biased removal of content from articles about plants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Pervasive issues in the 'Traditional Medicine' sections of plant articles.

And while I'm here, Zefr claims in the first comment above that there is "scant evidence" and "no WP:MEDRS reviews" about polyphenols. I find today that a PubMed search with the usual filters for MEDLINE-indexed WP:MEDDATE- WP:MEDPRI-compliant secondary sources gives me 6,922 hits, including 3,800 in humans, including 736 sources that have the exact word polyphenol in the article's title. That is a lot of peer-reviewed medical review articles for something that allegedly has "scant evidence", and several thousand more than one would expect to find when told there are "no WP:MEDRS reviews". For comparison, the same search settings, but for aspirin gives me less than half that many sources, and a search for statins is two-thirds as many as the sources for polyphenols. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Also for Elemimele: not bias, but critical skepticism and adherence for convincing, high-quality review sources which should apply in the encyclopedia to any implication of polyphenols being nutrients or having health properties - that is what Ggux-Ggck2 advocates in his professional agenda and editing history.

Take a double-dose of skepticism. Articles on polyphenols don't have sources above the unfiltered, primary cutoff in the MEDASSESS pyramids. If the two of you believe quality review sources do exist, be bold and just edit directly any polyphenol article with that source, and prepare for challenges about the information and source. If there's a compromise solution for better, well-sourced content that isn't trivia or undue, WP:ONUS applies (also for the editing practices of Ggck2).

Rather than creating lists of woo titles with no editing solution that improves the encyclopedia, choose from your thousands of search results a few MEDASSESS-quality reviews on polyphenols. New article sections from such sources might be titled, Atherosclerosis prevention, Inflammation relief, Cancer prevention, Health benefits, Nutritional advantages, Maternity health, Oral health, Anti-aging benefits (all ideas from titles and abstracts on your lists), or any health-promoting or anti-disease effect of a polyphenol that actually meets the bar of a MEDASSESS filtered source.

You offered a similar list of woo in Special:Diff/1379769105, but apparently didn't actually read what you found, as pointed out in Special:Diff/1379778084.

These issues are not principal considerations of the TBAN proposal for Ggck2. Please stay on track. Zefr (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Zefr - I have frequently and explicitly stated (and made edits in that regard) that polyphenols are not nutrients. However, the reason for this is not that they are - or are not - on some curated list, but that they are not essential and in many parts of the world, this is the requirement. What I have done was stating that they have a physiological effect, they can damage the liver, some of them can cause an immune function, and both of this has been recognised by various regulatory agencies. There is considerable research about further impact on health, including systematic reviews and even a recommendation from the Academy_of_Nutrition_and_Dietetics (please note that I am a co-author - so I am not unbiased here). So while for many the effect size is small and there are only scant data, for some, there is quite a reasonable amount. Whether this all needs to be included is a different question and needs to be discussed - but it does not mean it does not exist.

Ggck2 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Zefr there's a compromise to be struck here. I am not aiming to create long sections demonstrating health effects of phytochemicals because very often you're right, the research is very primary and not conclusive. But as an encyclopedia we should address the question "Why is anyone interested in this?". Very often the answer is "because some bunch of people somewhere think it cures warts, and although we do not believe their traditional medicine is scientific, it's possible that by accident there is something in this, and therefore researchers have investigated the link" (this is in fact the reason for the Nagoya Protocol). We're ending up with illogical double-standards here; withanolide is a good example, where apparently we can say that withanolides are being explored as pesticides but we can't say they're being explored as pharmaceuticals. Elemimele (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

One problem with many phytochemicals is that they sit somewhere between chemistry, nutrition, botany and medicine - and that results in different standards being applied. And then there is of course herbal medicine - some countries license herbal drugs without any evidence of efficacy based on historical use. But I think not mentioning this is also introducing a bias. Using the structure referred to by @WhatamIdoing could help, but I think for phytochemicals, it might need some adjustment for the non-medical aspects. Ggck2 (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you comment on the intent for readers when you added a subhead titled Flavanols in human nutrition, Special:Diff/1087918899, and polyphenols and other non-nutrient phytochemicals were added to categories for "nutrition, nutrient, and nutritional science"? Zefr (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Polyphenols are relevant to human nutrition. They are an ubiquitous part of the human diet for more people. In my opinion, referring to human nutrition makes it clear that this is not about medical claims but nutrition related information. I have not referred to them as nutrients and explained why they are not. Ggck2 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Zefr: you rejected this section with the following statement

→Flavanols in human nutrition: misleading section head - flavanols do not contribute to human nutrition as they are phytochemicals, not nutrients; fix other subheads per MOS:SECTIONS; ce, trim lab research

Flavanols do not contribute nutrients, but this does not mean that it is not part of human nutrition (the Wikipedia article refers to Phytochemicals). The USDA even refers to "Phytonutrients" (https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/food-composition/phytonutrients) - so having a section on human nutrition for phytochemicals that are commonly consumed seems to be not completely unreasonable. Ggck2 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Following my comment here, @Zefr has edited the article on Human nutrition (Special:Diff/1375149716) to change the section heading from "Phytochemicals" to "Non-nutrient phytochemicals" and added a statement that is not supported by evidence:

There is no conclusive evidence in humans that polyphenols or other non-carotenoid phytochemicals contribute to nutrition, mainly because these compounds have poor bioavailability, i.e., following ingestion, they are extensively digested into smaller metabolites with unknown functions, then are rapidly eliminated from the body.

My edit which precipitated this ANI request addressed this very statement, i.e. that phytochemicals have poor bioavailability, their metabolites have unknown function or that they are rapidly eliminated from the body. Using several secondary sources (and also others that were used as explanation but not for the text), I tried to explain that this statement is wrong and not supported by the evidence. But instead of engaging with a factual argument, the request was denied, an ANI incident was raised and the same information was added again elsewhere.

Phytochemicals include compounds that have been very well characterised such as caffeine with half-life of around six hours or cannabinoids with half-lives of more than a day. Ggck2 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

"Why is anyone interested in this?" is one of the most important things about any article. It should generally appear in the lead – often in the first or second sentence. In other subject areas, we call this a Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. "In parts of Asia, this plant is used by traditional healers to treat the common cold" is not something that should be suppressed (dare we say WP:CENSORED?) until there is enough scientific research to convince an individual Wikipedian that it works. We should say what the sources say, even if what they're saying is that enough people think it works that it's a billion-dollar industry, rather than saying that scientific evidence proves that it works better than placebo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Zefr, let's talk about WP:MEDASSESS: Let's talk about the bit that says Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review, and the bit that says editors (including you) are not allowed to reject review articles because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. That's what you're doing when you reject all of these review articles. It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor to decide whether the peer-reviewed review article's conclusions are warranted by the underlying research.

When we have a stack of actual review articles, in actual medical journals, that take a bunch of papers based on the lowest possible level of evidence, and they come to a conclusion – even a conclusion that the substance in question cures cancer and trigger a golden age of world peace – then the job of a Wikipedia editor is to fairly, accurately, proportionately, and as far as humanly possible, without bias, to write down what those review articles say. The job of a Wikipedia editor is not to say "Hmmm, all the studies cite these experiments in mice – nah, they're all wrong, and I'm smarter and a better scientist than the peer reviewers and the journal editors, so I'll reject these sources. There's no True™ Scientific Evidence on this subject". Wikipedia has tried that from time to time, and the results have been things like WP:ESSJAY. You need to stop doing that.

If you need a structure to help you organize the actual rules, you might try Template:MEDRS evaluation. Note the existence of options like "Is it a review article?" and the absence of options like "Do you personally believe that the conclusion is epistemically warranted, given than the subject is r?"

There are literally thousands of MEDRS-compatible sources on this subject. You are not supposed to be looking at these sources and saying "Oh, but you can't use this one, because I personally think that they drew a conclusion that isn't warranted by the evidence – I mean, when you dig into the article, you can see that they're 'only' basing their conclusions on cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, and the one of the pictures in MEDRS says those categories are 'unfiltered' information". Guess what? That research stops being 'unfiltered information' when it is combined into a review. Every single one of those reviews can be used for their conclusion, even if that conclusion says something positive about polyphenols. Editors shouldn't be citing primary literature ("What I Did with My Summer Polyphenols Research Grant"), but they should be allowed to cite the "Review of Dietary Polyphenols in ____" articles that use that primary literature.

To give you an example, all the sources you blanked in Special:Diff/1379761933 were non-MEDRS, because they were all WP:MEDPRI. But the sources I suggested ( ) are all MEDRS-quality, because they are all review articles published in reputable journals during the last five years. Remember, the point of WP:MEDASSESS is not to say that Wikipedians get to decide whether a review article is justified, or to exclude all possible information until a Wikipedia editor decides that "enough" research has been done to be able to say anything at all. The point of MEDASSESS is that a review article trumps a primary source (and also the 37-year-old primary source that you reverted back into that article while blanking the newer primary sources, BTW.)

Thanks for the invitation to edit Wikipedia. Apparently like the other editors here, I avoid editing articles where you're present. I already have other projects in hand, and I don't want to spend my time arguing with an editor who seems to declare everything that doesn't fit his anti-supplement POV to either be "trivia" or "undue", and that publishers that are supposed to be evaluated case-by-case need to be reverted on sight. Since you rarely respond to pings from editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, I assume the feeling is mutual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll add to the above assessments that are unimpressed with Zefr's application of RS. At raw chocolate, Zefr removed sourced content as "unsourced". When challenged, Zefr said the information was not sourced to RS (it was, it just didn't have a citation at the end of the sentence which it doesn't need under WP:CITEDENSE), that the statements "impress as opinions" (they didn't), and that a statement could be tagged as citation needed because the source was offline - a violation of WP:PAYWALL. Whonting (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I think this statement by Zefr Special:Diff/1344182815 highlights the main source of the discussion:

Polyphenols and xanthines are not nutrients, but rather phytochemicals with unknown properties in vivo.

Many people working on phytochemicals - presumably not limited to my direct colleagues - would disagree with that assessment. Caffeine and Theobromine are both xanthines with very well established pharmacological effects. For some polyphenols, it is known that they can cause liver damage . There are of course a lot of data that are too preliminary or too obscure to include, and it is sensible to curate them sensibly.

Using explanations for edits - or rejections of edits - can be frustrating as they can make it more difficult to reach a conclusion and improve an article. Ggck2 (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

• This seems to have gone off-topic. The main concern here was about Ggck2's behaviour. I already voted, I have no doubt this user could add valuable content on MEDRS topics but on polyphenols I found their editing disruptive, especially with the amount of edit requests they made. If they were topic banned on just this topic I think that would be valid solution as they could continue to edit many other topics. I believe if a topic banned on polyphenols is not brought about now we will probably be back on this noticeboard in the future. Instead of debating polyphenols I suggest future comments here should be votes about Ggck2 as we do not want to get into heated debates about MEDRS and phytochemicals here. Carrot juice (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have been told by Zefr that I must use an COI edit request for all edits Special:Diff/1372176621:

  There is no good MEDRS evidence or mainstream clinical evidence for either claim. Therefore, you are an advocate for information that may mislead users of Wikipedia. Your conflict of interest covers all this. Accordingly, you should follow WP:COIEDIT on the talk page of any polyphenol article you wish to edit.

  Incidentally, the reverted edit this referred to (Special:Diff/1372161737) was not about any health claim but the use of polyphenols in meat processing - so MEDRS or clinical evidence did not apply at all.

  The number of edit requests is due to the fact that many edits are directly reverted and directly requested by other editors, who also added the {{{coi-edit}}} template retrospectively (Special:Diff/1372162451).

  I appreciate that reposting {{{coi-edit}}} requests has been as mistake - I assumed that once declined, a discussion should not continue.

  Ggck2 (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  Carrot juice, that's not how it works. Zefr has complained about Ggck2's behaviour, but the question now is whose behaviour is at fault? If the dispute between Zefr and Ggck2 is caused as much by Zefr's attitude to policing articles as by Ggck2's professional role, then it would be unfair to impose a TBAN on Ggck2. Elemimele (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  It is confusing to come into this as a layperson - I've got some level of medical & scientific knowledge through my work, but no formal academic qualifications.

  From what I understand, there were concerns over Ggck2's excessive edit requests, which they've agreed to take more care over. The conversation has now shifted into boomerang territory, with several editors citing concerns over working collaboratively with OP & some finding the topic unpleasant to work in as a result. I hope this is about right?

  A lot of this discussion is about the validity of content - of course that's related to the issue at hand, but I'm wondering whether there's a better place for this aspect of the discussion than ANI. Perhaps the discussion might even lead to a compromise that means no further action is necessary - although I may be too optimistic, I'd like to still consider the possibility.

  When we have two opposing viewpoints, if they can truly work together we can achieve really great articles - but they have to understand that each of them will have a bias that they'll need to overcome. If the other side calls then out on it, it's time to honestly ask whether they might be right.

  @Zefr it's clearly true that big businesses will arrange promotional & often very questionable studies, but that doesn't mean they're all useless. There may be some that (very rarely) yield useful, replicable data - similarly, not all research in that area will suffer from the same flaws. You're probably well aware of this, but I'd like to restate it anyway since it's good to remember.

  Since Wikipedia itself isn't able to judge whether that's the case, how do we find reliable sources that can? What do those sources say? Wikipedia is essentially a consolidation of reliable sources - we can't make any claims or judgements of our own.

  Everyone reading this has let their own biases affect their judgement in the past. Despite knowing this, we'll all do it again in the future - it's part of being human.

  The question is whether it's happening here.

  Please, take a moment to ask yourself honestly - is it possible that your previous experience in this area has led you to be a bit overzealous when it comes to removing content and collaborating with others?

  If you think this might be the case, can you understand why others might be discouraged from working with you? If so, are you willing to work on this? Look at the number of editors agreeing with you and compare it to those who have concerns. Does that tell you anything important? Is there any possibility, no matter how small, that you could have done something differently - something to prevent those concerns from arising in the first place?

  I know you have lots of valuable knowledge and editing experience, Wikipedia desperately needs your passion and expertise - but it also needs you to be able to work with other editors from all viewpoints, whether you agree with them or not. We can't have one and not the other, we need both from you. You can absolutely disagree with other editors, but it should never be an unpleasant experience for either side - if it is, then something needs to be done.

  Re. Ggck2, the original concern about spamming edit requests seems to have been resolved through discussion and classification further up, and I'm not sure whether the original block should be revisited without compelling evidence of continuous disruption post-block. I'm not seeing much of an appetite for further action here, although it's rather hard to tell from the sheer length of the discussion to date.

  Right now, the general consensus seems to be that Zefr probably needs to consider whether they've (unintentionally) been rather difficult to collaborate with, and/or might need to take a step back & take stock prior to editing things that they feel particularly strongly about.

  Am I reading the room correctly, here? Also apologies for the long post! In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  No admin has commented on this case, so it's likely a stalemate, will passively archive, or be closed as "no decision".

  The honorable thing for Ggck2 would be to self-impose a TBAN covering his admitted polyphenol biases, SPA-advocacy and wide COI, stop pitching his opinions and COI-related sources on associated talk pages, and branch out to enjoy editing Wikipedia.

  Admins are editors on most articles I edit, have not warned about my revisions being too bold (or even combative), and have not reverted my edits as erroneous or unsourced. I'm happy to collaborate on any article with editors bringing strong sources. Zefr (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

  The honourable thing, in my opinion, would be to wait for the discussion to conclude. It has become obvious that there are quite different opinions here, and your recent edit of Human Nutrition (Special:Diff/1380257735) does exactly what both @Elemimele and I have raised here:

  • Not many people - no-one here - claims phytochemicals are nutrients, even though they are sometimes referred to asPhytonutrients (e.g. by the USDA) and there is no need to add this in a section header, especially as it implies there are also "nutrient" phytochemicals
  • "There is no conclusive evidence in humans that polyphenols or other non-carotenoid phytochemicals contribute to nutrition." - many nutritionists would disagree with this. Fibre or probiotics are not bioavailable at all, but are considered part of human nutrition.
  • The statement that they have poor bioavailability, are rapidly metabolised and eliminated is simply wrong: for flavonoids, I have included supporting evidence (with secondary sources) in the edit that precipitated this discussion), but there are e.g. caffeeine (where metabolism is very well understood and which has a half-life of ~6h), theobromine or cannabinoides with half-lives of more than one day. Phytochemicals are such a vast group of compounds that a generic statement (low bioavailability, rapid excretion) is simply too generic and where not many people have expertise for all sorts of compounds.

  I do not say that this means I have done nothing wrong - and I leave it to administrators to make a decision. But I think the honourable thing for any editor would be not to make major changes on articles while this is being discussed here. Ggck2 (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that Zefr has been shown to make bold false claims in articles, which are unsupported by high quality sources, and rather easily rebuffed with counter examples. That those bold false claims align with Zefr's longstanding "anti-woo" agenda is a red flag that we have an editor disrupting Wikipedia to push a POV. Ggck2 in contrast seems well aware of the limitations of research in this area and knowledgeable - as one would expect if they are a researcher. I'm afraid Zefr's comments come across as overly confident and dismissive on a topic they don't fully understand nor seem to want to understand.

  I can see that Zefr's edits are often appreciated by fellow anti-woo editors. And for the avoidance of doubt as to my position, I created WP:MEDRS, so I'm certainly not here to push nonsense.

  The problem is this is a topic of legitimate research by intelligent highly educated people whose work is published in respected journals. To entirely dismiss this research (and researchers) as Zefr does, does not align with our mission to document human knowledge. This fits my experience of Zefr elsewhere, that they don't know how to handle topics that are being researched but that lack firm widely-accepted conclusions.

  I'm also concerned at the personal attacks on a researcher and the idea that having ever received commercial funding for research might be grounds for a topic ban. Not all researchers work for the government or altruistic charities. I get the feeling that Zefr is dismissive of Ggck2 because they are researcher on a topic they mock, much like I guess some people are unable to get along with people who have a religion, because "sky fairies".

  We should only topic ban experts as a last resort. We want experts. We want researchers. Zefr's idea that topic banning an expert on their topic of expertise might encourage them to be productive elsewhere is foolish and unsupported by evidence. On a volunteer project, we have no business dictating which topics an editor should find fascinating enough to contribute towards.

  I don't see any evidence by Zefr that they accept they have made false claims aligned with their agenda, or indeed, any willingness to work with editors who don't fully share their zealotry. A boomerang topic ban is warranted. Colin°^Talk 08:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm reluctantly veering in this direction too.

  I was really hoping for some self-introspection following my post, but they've gone straight back to Ggck2 again.

  This thread raises concerns about the behaviour of two editors, unfortunately only one seems willing to look at these concerns in-depth and work towards resolving them.

  For the record, I really dislike pseudoscience and Woo (especially since I'm forced to deal with it often as part of my work), but we can't let our personal views colour our work at Wikipedia. If we're too overzealous, we can end up inadvertently damaging our own "cause", if that makes sense. The opposing side can just call us closed-minded and unfair, and they'd be right to do so. The truth is too important for that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:47, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

  Constructive comments on my editing behavior are appreciated for the thoughtfulness and encouragement to reduce friction and hit a reset button for smoother collaboration. I'm genuinely grateful for the thoughtful reminders on etiquette by Blue Sonnet that I've "been rather difficult to collaborate with". Although that description filters from a small sample of Wikipedians attending this particular discussion, the history of my collaborating usefully on hundreds of topics and talk pages over 20+ years is evidence for a different conclusion. That history reminds me to be more collaborative and constructive. Thanks.

  There has never been a case of my using pseudoscience or abusing MEDRS, but rather history proves the opposite: consistent MEDRS defence and rigor. Triple-checking each other's writing and choice of sources is a workable way forward to improve the project.

  I regret that some users have felt my editing has been unpleasant or obstructive. As anyone who has been involved in tough academic peer-review or lively debate knows, healthy skepticism and sharp criticism are often a bruising part of building a better outcome. I welcome receiving pushback and the challenge to polish my scholarship. It ensures a clearer encyclopedia in the end.

  For the articles introduced in this ANI topic, we have unique sourcing challenges, particularly about overlapping COI boundaries and ensuring we aren't giving undue weight to Ggck2's SPA agenda. Let's closely inspect independent, secondary sources so we don't accidentally turn the COI articles into a CV list of lab research literature.

  Editing Wikipedia is an open forum afterall. There are 60 to ~250 page-watchers for the three topics mentioned at the top, i.e., lots of editors, with only a few changes to each article in 2026. This implies general stability of content, and challenges to Ggck2's advocacy and COI have held. The talk pages are open to anyone having better definitions and sources. Disagreements will settle out to improve accuracy and reliability. I'm confident that we can overcome these disagreements productively, and apply for each article a good motto from above the lab door: "Leave it in better shape than you found it". Zefr (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

  @Zefr - I did not propose to change any references in the edit that resulted in this ANI. One of the references (Williams, 2004) is co-authored by a colleague of mine. The reviews I suggested for the use of polyphenol in meat processing were not authored by anyone I know personally. Where I referred to papers I have co-authored - such as an EFSA opinion - I have made this clear.

  The stability of the articles is not necessarily an indication that they are correct, or that my suggestions were advocacy and rightfully rejected, because in general you were the only editor to reject and revert them. You have asked more than once for better evidence - which I appreciate - but then ignored the answer and refused to engage (and in one instance decided to come here). Ggck2 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

• Affirmative to an Indef °Using Wikipedia as a vector for one's own published thesis, within a field rife with charlatans, while being evasive, is not acceptable. Contributing to articles falling within one's own field of expertise is horribly tedious when away from the office, and a fallacy of exclusive premises. This topic will benefit from an approach similar to that of cutting-edge quantum physics articles. /Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with topic banning Zefr. This user has improved 1000s of nutrition related articles and no solid evidence has been presented that they are disrupting or trying to police patrol polyphenol related articles. This is too complex to go into but the real issue is that nutritional science in the last ten years especially has been infiltrated with all sorts of pseudoscience and nonsense and the peer review process has been abused by biochemists who have little understanding of nutrition. It seems anyone now can publish any old shite as a "review" and get it indexed on PubMed in dodgy journals. Let me give just one brief example of this. If you look at lignans there is no high quality clinical evidence that they have any health effects but when you go on PubMed you will see nonsense like this . The review offers no high-quality or even moderate evidence. For example, the review mentions "A total of 180 lignans were included in the review. Out of these, only three were investigated in randomised clinical trials in humans and 31 in animal models" The review looked at only 5 short-term clinical trials. Most of the review talks about in vitro and animal models which we all know is very weak evidence WP:MEDANIMAL. If you look on pubmed it is always the same names from the middle east or Nigeria publishing this nonsense. An example is Muhammad Torequl Islam. These are always biochemists or molecular biologists, as said they have no qualification or understanding in nutritional science yet they publish "review" after review. 100s of these reviews are published every month reporting in the abstract "anticancer potentials" or "antidiabetic properties", "anti-inflammatory" etc but there is very little if any clinical evidence for this. It is the same story every time. Feel free to dismiss me in the "anti-woo" camp but this is Wikipedia and we need a higher-quality standard of evidence here. Citing this type of garbage will destroy nutritional related articles if we let people have their way with the articles just to cite any low-tier of evidence.

Above WhatamIdoing said that Zefr should not be doing their own peer review of reviews found on pubmed and that per WP:MEDASSESS we can cite any medical review as it qualifies as WP:MEDPRI. I disagree with this. WhatamIdoing also listed 3 reviews including this one claiming they are reliable and should be put on Wikipedia. Well take a look at this one they listed . Muhammad Torequl Islam is a co-author. It is the same ol' shite. There is no good clinical evidence in any of these reviews, or even reliable epidemiological data it is usually animal models or pathway theorizing. I would go as far as claiming the abstract "These activities encompass anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, lipid-lowering capability, anticancer, trichogenic, hepatoprotective, gastroprotective, osteoprotective, renoprotective, and cardioprotective effects" is misinformation because they provide no good evidence for this. When you read the authors conclusions they always say long-term clinical trials are needed. I have been reading these types of papers for years now and it is the same thing every time. Rince and repeat.

It is a battle everyday to keep woo and nonsense off Wikipedia nutrition articles. I would add that I am rarely a deletionist and I do add health effects to nutrition related articles but only if they are supported by a decent systematic review. That's exactly what we need. Zefr is not trying to suppress information. If any user was to add a decent review of controlled trials they wouldn't remove it but let's not cite these very weak reviews like WhatamIdoing listed. We need strong evidence for health effects not conjecture. Carrot juice (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't want anybody topic-banned. We need to sort out how we can navigate areas like Flavan-3-ol. I think Zefr's woo-detector needs a bit of recalibration if we're in a situation where trying to mention a 21,000-sized human study on flavanols, that has not only created its own primary literature but which has also been reviewed in secondary literature, brings us to ANI. I do appreciate Zefr's concern about commercial science, but again at the moment we judge sources by the editorial standards of the journal, not by the funding body, and a lot of extremely good science receives funding from people interested in its outcome. (I'd add that this includes charitable and government funding; reserch councils spending public money, and academics funded by them, would very much like a huge positive outcome on health, and a nice career-advancing Nature paper.) Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's take this claim above as an example: If you look at lignans there is no high quality clinical evidence that they have any health effects but when you go on PubMed you will see nonsense like this .

Here's one of the the standard forms for evaluating this against MEDRS:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: The antidiabetic properties of lignans: a comprehensive review PMID 40220408
• Date of publication: June 2025, 16 months ago.
• Journal name: Phytomedicine (journal)
• Publisher's name: Y Elsevier is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: MEDLINE indexed, Index medicus, 98th percentile in its field and 94th in pharmaceutical science, impact factor of 11.3
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: (Not a research/experimental paper, so not applicable)
• Independence: No conflicts of interest disclosed

Against this, we have a Wikipedia editor's comments:

• "The review offers no high-quality or even moderate evidence" (in the Wikipedian's opinion, of course).
  • But MEDRS says that Wikipedia editors should accept what a reliable journal publishes, without deciding for themselves if they know better than the reliable sources. MEDRS says "Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis)...because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source".
  • Also, not every claim needs high-quality clinical evidence. There's a difference between writing "Human testing proves that Wonderpam prevents cancer" and writing "Early-stage research focuses mainly on cancer prevention".
• "The review looked at only 5 short-term clinical trials."
  • But MEDRS says that Wikipedia editors should accept what a reliable journal publishes, without deciding for themselves if they know better than the reliable sources.
  • Also, I somehow suspect that you'd be perfectly fine citing that same source, with those same 5 short-term clinical trials, if it said that there was no evidence of any effect, or if it said there was evidence of harm.
• "Most of the review talks about in vitro and animal models".
  • The WP:IN MICE section of MEDRS firmly discourages citing an original/experimental paper that describes preclinical research, but the proposal isn't a case of "in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia". This is a case of citing a peer-reviewed review article that happens to include in vitro and animal-model papers. That same section of MEDRS says editors should cite a review article in such sitautions ("by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources").
• "It is always the same names from the middle east or Nigeria publishing this nonsense."
  • Wow. Do you want to try to rephrase this so it doesn't sound so racist? There's nothing wrong with a person in the Middle East or Africa writing journal articles. There's also nothing wrong with a person in a developing country writing journal articles.
• "These are always biochemists or molecular biologists, as said they have no qualification or understanding in nutritional science yet they publish "review" after review."
  • But Wikipedia editors do? See also WP:ESSJAY, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, etc.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion has been going on for sixteen days and there's no consensus for action against either editor.

Would it be possible to move the content discussion off ANI and onto a more appropriate forum?

You'll have a greater chance of engagement from other interested editors, whereas this lengthy discussion is probably just going to turn into an echo chamber of sorts, only with those already involved. The longer a thread gets at ANI, the fewer people will read it. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 00:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

PMID 40220408 offers no high quality clinical evidence for lignans and admits they have low oral bioavailability. In total less than 10 trials have ever been published on lignans. Why would we talk about health effects for something when hardly any human data exists? Is that sensible? There is some interesting cohort data but not any reviews on that. In a nutshell there isn't any good evidence for health effects as of 2026 so the statement was accurate. Low-quality evidence, animal models or speculation is not worth citing on Wikipedia for human health effects. Let's not mislead readers with false or very weak data.

Let's briefly look at the editor-in-chief Alexander Panossian (Swedish Herbal Institute) of the journal Phytomedicine who died recently. He promoted Adaptogens and funded a trial that was published in a predatory journal . He was peddling a herbal extract ADAPT-232/Chisan which was known for making exaggerated and false health claims. So Phytomedicine clearly is not a good source for discussing nutrition health data and it is no surprise Muhammad Torequl Islam published in that journal because he publishes in a lot of non-nutrition journals. That said, Phytomedicine is a useful journal to cite for toxicology or the history of herbal medicine but it is certainly no Advances in Nutrition or European Journal of Clinical Nutrition is it?. You need to ask yourself if there were significant health effects for lignans then why has no notable nutrition journal published a review?

You seem to be supporting the idea that if anyone publishes a review that is MEDLINE indexed no matter the poor quality then it can be cited on Wikipedia by default. As said I disagree, I would rather read the reviews and only cite them if they offer moderate or high quality evidence. I realize elsewhere you have defended MDPI and Frontiers journals which are often deemed predatory or unreliable. I believe we are approaching these topics differently. I am not convinced we should be just putting any review on Wikipedia in this topic area. Carrot juice (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let me try again:

• A Wikipedia editor should not say things like "PMID 40220408 offers no high quality clinical evidence for lignans" because Wikipedia:You are not a reliable source for what constitutes high-quality clinical evidence for lignans. (If you are, then please go publish a review article in a reputable medical journal, so we can cite that.)
• A Wikipedia editor should say things like "This is a recent secondary source in a highly ranked journal published by a reputable publisher, so I will accept the conclusions of this MEDRS-ideal source even if they disagree with my own personal opinion on what constitutes enough clinical evidence." Note that trying to discredit a highly ranked journal on the basis of one person's involvement, when the research world does not object, is not okay. In fact, I've only seen one editor persist in that line of reasoning in the past, and he ended up with an ArbCom ban.

Do you see the difference between what you're doing and what you should be doing?

I defend individual MDPI and Frontiers journals in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1/FAQ#Q8. Anyone who doesn't is screwing up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You are mistaken. This is not my opinion. PMID 40220408 offers no high quality clinical evidence. PMID 40220408 is not a systematic meta-analysis, it is a review of mostly preclinical evidence. It offers low-tier evidence per WP:MEDASSESS. In vitro and animal-model findings are amongst the lowest type of evidence, again not my opinion. Most of the review featured this low-tier evidence so it is not offering high-quality evidence is it? Anyone can see that. Even the review itself admits that larger-scale clinical studies are needed. This discission has gone off topic. I believe this should be closed as there doesn't appear to be a consensus. Carrot juice (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the discussion about the interpretation of sources is interesting and important, but I agree with others that it might be better placed somewhere else. However, I would appreciate a decision in one way or another - because without it, it is very likely that Zefr will disagree and we end up here (or somewhere else). I'm happy to follow the relevant rules - but I think I'm now in a position where I'm actually confused about what I should and shouldn't do, so any advice would be welcome. Ggck2 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Sandeep kumar 83

Despite requests/warnings on the user talk page User talk:Sandeep kumar 83#Suggestion!! and my edit summary on 2026 Andhra Pradesh urban local bodies elections, the user continues to copy paste the same content without providing any source for more than 3 times. Heavily unsourced and factually incorrect content is being placed on the article. I am worried since the user is a long time wikipedia User. 456legendtalk 14:13, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in and say that the user has pasted LLM output into articles before: Laura240406 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Laura240406 Is there no action to be taken on such incidents? The user does not follow 3RR and is also reluctant to participate in any kind of discussion. They keep adding loads of unsourced content on the article I have quoted above without any edit summary or sources. The article I am talking about is an upcoming election and if you look at the results section, this person has already published the results in whatever way they wanted. I am surprised that they have joined Wikipedia 13 years ago. 456legendtalk 00:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

It would be easier if you provided some direct links to the problem edits rather than a link to a page. There's a lot of editing at 2026 Andhra Pradesh urban local bodies elections and it's hard to see the problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Alappaa), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 17:23, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

This is immediately mainspace block-worthy, they have included communication from the chatbot that was intended for themselves. aesurias (she/her) (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, for anyone who's not familiar with this article, the context is that it is a local government election for the cities and towns in an Indian state. This particular election is scheduled and has not been conducted or concluded yet.

This was my first content removal from the page stating that this is a duplication of the content from the previous election. []

I assumed they might have done it in good faith and aren't aware how to use a sandbox, I also intimated them on the same day regarding their style of editing on their talk page. Since I have also encountered a similar pattern on the other articles too.

Similar behaviour on other articles where they simply copy paste the old content without or with the old references, which are of no relevant and will definitely lead to a factually incorrect presentation of the article. (It is simply a duplication of a different article but with a new name)

Example: look in to this version on the 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council election: , the user has duplicated the same elected person name: Vennapusa Gopal Reddy for multiple posts. As always, I have assumed good faith and rescued the article with sources, my version .

Now coming to the issue on the article we were discussing previously, despite me reverting their additions, as provided in the 1st reference here, they have again added the same set of content from the old article without any references or sources backing it, twice and continued to do whatever they wanted since they disregarded my other 2 reverts too.

They neither respond to any discussions on their talk page nor provide any edit summaries. I am worried since they are a long time Wikipedia user and they aren't aware of the rules here. I believe they are genuinely here to contribute but definitely doing whatever they feel is good in their own judgement. And as i have also been informed from other users, they have found pasting AI generated content on one of the article and also they move their own articles from the draft space to the mainspace even when an article was found to be not ready for mainspace. The relevant discussion here on the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Can someone help in draftying these articles? 456legendtalk 03:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

This is totally disheartening to see no action being taken when the user continues to add information without providing source for it. The election didn't even conclude but the winners are already been declared by this user on Wikipedia. 456legendtalk 13:43, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Pblocked from Articles for lack of communication. User needs to respond to these concerns. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:39, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid creating new pages or new topics. From now onwards I will create the things in draft space and later after verifying I will move them into main space. Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

What LLM articles? Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The thing I am trying to update the content daily as the elections are ongoing now. Every time I am trying to provide the reference links to the content I am writing. I want to know what you meant by LLM? I am also not using any LLM. So please lift the block/ban placed on me. You have doubts you can question me directly. Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Then explain why this diff of yours includes LLM-to-user communication front and centre. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Thriller Night!} 17:19, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I did a mistake. I will try not to repeat that in future. Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sandeep kumar 83 We need you to explain how that mistake happened.

Did you accidentally copy text from an AI/LLM/chatbot into the page? An LLM is a Large Language Model, an AI that generates text - like Google Gemini, ChatGPT or Grok.

Tell us exactly what happened, please. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 19:01, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I generally use ai chat bot as draft page to do edits as I cant do all the edits in wikipedia drafts. Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You'll try not to slip up and reveal that you used AI to write an article, or? aesurias (she/her) (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought they didn't know what am LLM was (I want to know what you meant by LLM?), hence my explanation. This is essentially a claim that they don't know what an LLM is.

However, if they don't know what an LLM is, how on earth can they also claim I am also not using any LLM as if it were fact?

It's very hard to trust what they're saying, yet we need to be able to trust them if they're going to be allowed to edit Wikipedia.

There had better be a very good explanation, because both of those statements can't be true at once.

If the confusion is due a language barrier, then we have another potential problem on top of the AI-use. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 21:59, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't get what you are try to say? Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you using an AI, LLM or vhatbot program to write articles and text for you? Yes or no?

I've explained what LLM's are and gave you links to the articles too.

I'm very worried that you don't seem to understand what several people are asking you.

This edit of yours contains text that looks like an AI/LLM/chatbot wrote it and you just copied it over without understanding what it said, or without realising what you were doing.

Where did the text in this edit of yours come from?

If you don't understand what we're asking, I don't think you should be editing this Wikipedia at all.

If English is not your first language, you may wish to focus on a Wikipedia in a language you're more familiar with. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sandeep kumar 83 like ChatGPT or Claude? aesurias (she/her) (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes Gigman (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I generally use ai chat bot as draft page to do edits as I cant do all the edits in wikipedia drafts. Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok - so a chatbot is an LLM.

It's an AI program, which means you were wrong when you said you weren't using one.

It also violates the WP:NOLLM guideline, so it's very important that you read the NOLLM page before you do anything else here.

AI/LLM's are very, very bad at editing Wikipedia. They aren't designed to do this and cause many problems - the exact problems that we've seen happen with your editing, and these problems are why you were blocked.

You didn't know enough about Wikipedia editing to understand when the AI was making mistakes, so you didn't know that they needed fixing. This meant other people had to stop their own work and fix your mistakes for you. That couldn't continue, so you had to be blocked to protect Wikipedia.

There honestly aren't any shortcuts to editing Wikipedia, you'll need to learn how to do it yourself, without an AI helping you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I want to know whether I will be unblocked or not? Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Any reply? Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You are unlikely to be unblocked until you can convince administrators that you understand what you have been blocked for, that you will not continue to cause damage or disruption in similar ways in future, and that you will make useful contributions instead. The place to do that is on your talk page as a general rule. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 13:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Three appeals were rejected; I've explained the edit request process so they can hopefully work towards becoming unblocked in the future. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:29, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet@Rsjaffe@Jéské Couriano@Aesurias Adding this here for record purpose, and pinging people involved in the discussion above, please ignore if it is irrelevant,

please compare the articles, Damacharla Janardhana Rao and Edara Hari Babu. This user created the second article by taking the first article as it's base. They have simply copy pasted the text and the sources, which shows how identical the both articles are. Revision on the second article shows how only the name of the person was changed while everything else was retained as it is. No hate towards them but I genuinely feel they were on a spree to create to new articles on Wikipedia without any sources or references being provided. The second article requires a complete cleanup, which I will be taking up. 456legendtalk 13:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Found user Sandeep wtf (created on 18th October) editing on the same article (2026 Andhra Pradesh urban local bodies elections) in dispute, similarly to the user banned Sandeep kumar 83 (banned on 17th October). I suspect it to be a sockpuppet. 456legendtalk 00:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppet. Blocked both sock and master sitewide indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Swoonfed personal attacks and aspersions

Swoonfed (talk · contribs) apparently finds it perfectly acceptable to lash out with personal attacks and aspersions when they don't like edits on the Russia article, the latest outburst being caused by verification tags being added to infobox content with WP:SYNTH issues.

1 "I understand you have your bias, but you need to go and tag every single country article like this. We can actually find out the rankings through the data toggler or the attached Wikipedia articles. This is now dubious? Are you alright?"

2 "But that is not sufficient information for the individual above. I was making the same argument. @TylerBurden: wants EXPLICIT mentioning the exact rankings, as in 1, 2, 3. But that applies to only one country under his watch (Russia). He'll order others to scour the internet for it because he is above this. Its because he knows that they are not available on the internet. People do not have unlimited time on their hands to create pointless d-measuring lists to spam across the internet for stuff people already can search up on Wikipedia. So according to this man the Wikipedia articles created specifically for the rankings BASED on those reliable, institutional sources are entirely fradulent and WP:SYNTH. Not for OTHER countries though, only for Russia. So the tags will stay put until eternity. Incredible."

Aside from the obvious WP:AGF and aspersion issues, I find it a bit ironic that time constraints are being mentioned while Swoonfed is attempting to demand me to go to different articles I don't even edit and add tags to them if a maintenance tag is to be allowed to exist on the Russia article. I have never seen an editor tell someone adding a tag to go and do a check of the entire website, I saw an edit in my watchlist specifically regarding this and identified an issue, but Swoonfed clearly has their opinions, which apparently makes them eager to jump into conspiracy.

This is not the first time their conduct is less than ideal on this specific article, where as above, they easily resort to hostility and edit warring whenever they don't like something.

3 "long-standing nonsense i say... look at good articles like Germany where they don't need to put up random trash like this in the infobox. If you're so keen on putting these random numbers in here (where 11% didn't even declare their ethnicity - presumably russian) then use the more complete 2010 census where the numbers are actually more accurate."

4 "Not a "bombastic" claim at all, its just true. Whatever, this sentence was a part of this article for god knows how long until it was just recently removed by this certain turkish editor named chidgk1 who has a fixation on "updating" or just mass-tagging sentences to ruin the article overall"

They're a fan of circular Wikipedia referencing, considering Wikipedia lists to be reliable sources, even though they are like any other article completely user generated and whether they contain sources or not is subject to change.

5 "don't really understand the meaning of this tag here, wdym wikipedia lists are unreliable? If they're unsourced, then sure. But these are IMF statistics. Maybe even IMF is unreliable when it comes to Russia since its supposed to have an economy comparable to Guinea Bissau according to CNN or something"

I have little doubt this is going to continue, since they're just reverting these issues being pointed out. TylerBurden (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any instances of personal attacks here, and WP:AGF issues alone is not enough for an admin action. Gigman (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

The "certain turkish editor" barb is hostile and unnecessary, but TylerBurden's comments seem deliberately provocative without good reason. No, linking to another article is not WP:SYNTH. Neither is linking to a database list for a rank position, see WP:CALC. I'd hand out trouts to both parties. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Tyler exaggerates things, in this case he makes it seem like "turkish" is a personal attack, which isn't a good look for him frankly.

But besides that, If you look into his edit history, you'll see he tends to bring up WP:AGF and other WPs before properly engaging in discussion, especially when they're discussing edit disputes.

Giving them both a trout is a good idea, but I'd give Tyler a larger one for this WP:LAWYER approach to editing. Gigman (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Since this individual is now after me, and trying to dig up year-old comments to stir-up a stew here and get my account restricted so he can continue to degrade a certain article as he wishes, I would like to show some of his classy and courteous behavior here. Keep in mind, he constantly gets passive-aggressive and starts talking back-handedly to anybody opposing his biases. Examples include:

"If you don't understand WP:VERIFY, it's very simple, readers should be able to verify the content they are reading directly on the article they are reading, not by clicking on a different Wikipedia article that their neighbour can edit whenever they want. Instead of making comments exposing your personal views, fix the problem if you don't like the tag"

"Restored long-standing content regarding Russia's already deepening demographical issues that have accelerated following the war, which was replaced with details regarding percentage (in combination with fraction for some reason, I suppose 20% doesn't sound as impressive) of territory under occupation, which per the talk page is better displayed on map - make of that as you will

"Fix the problem instead of casting aspersions and personal attacks because you are upset you don't get to sit around on Wikipedia and promote the Russian economy with your WP:SYNTH" - this right here is an actual personal attack.

His actions on this particular article and many other related ones are as clear as the morning dew. Its very obvious what @TylerBurden:'s political standings are. Now with that specified, anything remotely positive about Russia on the country article itself is to be challenged or tagged. Anybody opposing that action is a Russian bot or a state-sponsored troll/farm bot. Something he has subtly suggested I am MULTIPLE times. Those were personal attacks.

To make something clear, he doesn't trust the IMF (or even the World Bank) because it publishes economic data for Russia that shows an increasing GDP. Now, if the data showed the GDP was decreasing, then IMF would have been the most reliable source in existence. According to his own words: "Oh interesting we're citing the IMF, quite bold to place in Wikivoice given that it nor Kristalina Georgieva (who heads it) are hardly without controversy, fixed date"

For anybody wanting a deeper insight into TylerBurden's careless, passive-aggressive behavior, they might want to take a look at this talk page discussion we had in January 2026 about Russia's occupation of Ukrainian territory.

And I apologize for bringing up a certain editor's nationality a year ago. I have not left any derogatory comments whatsoever about anybody's nationality, ethnicity, origin and race on this platform. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 12:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Talking about "passive-aggressive", I noticed that few days ago on this very noticeboard, Tyler replied to my message (which lowkey touched on the same subject) as Uh ok, where's the relevance? . By itself its nothing, but as I see this is a consistent pattern of cheeky comments. Gigman (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I wonder what it is you two are advocating for here, what does my "political standing" have to do with anything? How are clear personal attacks like the ones above not personal attacks?

"in this case he makes it seem like "turkish" is a personal attack, which isn't a good look for him frankly."

This might be the actual biggest reach I've seen on here, I am obviously highlighting it because Swoonfed made a completely inappropriate comment about an editors nationality, which has nothing to do with anything and they even apologized for. Your interpretation is disturbing, not to mention nonsensical, and it's not hard to see how you were banned from the entire site casually saying such things.

As far as I'm aware I don't get to edit Wikipedia based on my political standing, but Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV, if you are upset that I am editing articles concerning Russia in line with these polices, that probably says more about you than me. TylerBurden (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

@Glebushko0703 Is also making a lot of false accusations here without any diffs. "where anything remotely positive about Russia on the country article itself is to be challenged or tagged. Anybody opposing that action is a Russian bot or a state-sponsored troll/farm bot. Something he has subtly suggested I am MULTIPLE times. Those were personal attacks."

Is this trolling? TylerBurden (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

My point is not your political standing, but your engagement with editors across Wiki. Your comments, how AirshipJungleman29 pointed out are deliberately provocative without good reason. Even now, you say Swoonfed made a completely inappropriate comment about an editors nationality, while technically they only pointed out that they're Turkish. And I'm not accusing you of anything right now, I've only expressed my opinion as one of the participators, yet you immediately resort to Ad hominum. I see your conduct as rather combative, and you tend to focus on formalities rather than dispute resolution. Also, your messages are often needlessly smuggish, at least from my perspective.Gigman (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

You quite literally just implied that I was saying being Turkish is a bad thing, completely missing the point that I was including a diff of an editor pointing out someones nationality for absolutely no reason. "Not a good look." Given the reason for your topic ban, you probably shouldn't be the judge on this, and you should frankly know better from that as well. It wasn't me implying being Turkish was a bad thing, it was Swoonfed, who admitted wrongdoing and apologized.

Your WP:LAWYER arguments don't make any sense, I'm more than happy to engage in dispute resultion and have come to numerous consensuses over the years, these are actual policies being violated, pointing this out is not being a "lawyer". TylerBurden (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

As I said, that's only my opinion, but maybe I did misunderstood what you were trying to say. Regardless, I'm not the only person here expressing concern with your edits. Gigman (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I would certainly hope it was a misunderstanding. Like I said, I am not the one here with a ban for harassing a nationality. TylerBurden (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I am not the one here with a ban for harassing a nationality - well so neither am I, yet just like with your comments regading Swoonfed, you're implying something to make it seem like I am. This is the lawyering and smugness I'm talking about.Gigman (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

"This is an ongoing issue with this user harassing a segment of Wikipedia editors and has a number of warnings, blocks and bans for similar behavior"

I guess you can keep pretending you weren't taking glee in harassing Estonian Wikipedia editors all you want. TylerBurden (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Apology accepted thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

TylerBurden's edits give off the apperance of being affected by very strong feelings relating to Russia. I encountered this recently at Talk:Dmitry Donskoy, where TylerBurden made an unusual removal and summarised the rationale as "I guess I can only keep citing WP:DUE, if you are going to cover an event, all notable aspects need to be included." The specific explanation of the case was that "If we're going to include the Russian military's use of relics, it makes no sense to remove information regarding the Russian military losing it", later noting that their edit was an example of where "when someone tries to balance out a section". A particularly odd thing here is their edit does not really "balance" anything; it does not add a new or contradictory view to any of the information they removed. They also said to a third editor that "you are the one actively working to keep out notable information", despite their edit being the one removing most of the text in question. My interpretation from their edits there (it may be worth reading the whole discussion) is that they view the note that Russia sent some saintly relics to Ukraine as positive information about Russia, while they view the mention of the relics being destroyed as negative information about Russia. Thus, they made their edit to try to "balance" the text, and removed the earlier text as well when their edit was disputed.

The personal view flowing into edits is also apparent elsewhere. The most recent edit summary in this dispute with Swoonfed is "you are upset you don't get to sit around on Wikipedia and promote the Russian economy with your WP:SYNTH", quite a clear statement of a viewing edits from the view of either being promotional or not of Russia. One recent edit summary on the article covering Russian attacks on civilians in Ukraine was "apologies to person on talk page as I appear to be the only one updating this and Russia is striking civilians on the daily". An edit adding information about American peace proposals has an edit summary which includes "let's add the context to this article as well if we are going to insist on useless negotiations". In an edit adding content about Russian hybrid warfare in Finland, the edit summary in its entirety was "Can't make up this level of pettiness".

The content question behind this dispute with Swoonfed is, like with the Dmitry Donskoy article, a bit strange in the choice of issue. The dispute relates to TylerBurden adding fv tags to the GDP information in the infobox of Russia, and later changing to adding dubious tags to the GDP rankings there. I am, to note bias, not a fan of this use of the infobox myself, but it is almost universal on our articles. As a topical example, the same system of citing the IMF is used on the Ukraine article. The issue appears to have been raised due to TylerBurden's view that it is a "highly dubious claim that Russia is 4th place", where "place" suggests again the view that this is about winning something and thus about being promotional.

These are all from a very quick look at only the contributions from October. That TylerBurden brought this dispute themselves to AN/I, and in a highly personal manner that has continued in replies here, is indicative of how recent edits are in WP:BATTLEGROUND territory. This is a case where TylerBurden has edit warred in tags to the infobox based on their view that a statement is dubious, while saying in this report of another editor that "they [the other editor] easily resort to hostility and edit warring whenever they don't like something".

This is all not to suggest that TylerBurden may not have identified a problem of some sort. I have not looked deeply into Swoonfed's edits (they have very few in October), but one recent one was to remove a talkpage section multiple people had contributed to at Talk:Russia with the summary "Nonsense blabbering bloating the talk page WP:AGENDA". Similarly to suggesting edits are promotional, this goes straight to arguing there is an agenda, and is not an appropriate WP:TPO. There may or may not be a stronger case to be made here. Either way, this is a WP:CT/EE case that goes beyond trouting. Communication of multiple parties needs improvement, and individual restrictions should be considered. CMD (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how smug the editor who brought me here is. He's above it all, no body alive can judge this man. He's like a humongous ball of unlimited wisdom. Or at least that's what he thinks he is.

His goal is very simple, and I've laid out everything else above. He talks about my behavior, but its almost as if he's an angel, a Golden Retriever being constantly irritated to the point of irreversible breakdown, while in reality he's a provocateur who constantly practises snark-talking to come off as witty and gaslights to get a reaction, just so he could bring his "opponents" down through restrictions.

He is, to put it simply, very anti-Russian. Now that is his own, personal opinion. A very large part of the population in the Western world is. I, or anybody for that matter, doesn't have the right to interfere with his personal life or political views. But the way he edit-wars his opinions and mass-tags, challenges or straight up removes verified or reliable information out of an article out of pure hatred is truly fantastic. Its out of control sometimes. He can go at it, and keep on going, and won't STOP. And he gets to do that, because he's UNCHALLENGED. So anybody, and I mean anybody, opposing him has to be doing something unethical or is a bot, to put it simply.

I mean come on, look at how innocent TylerBurden is. We can see his innocence through his signature attitude and tangent with other editors on the Russia article who dared to slightly disagree with his omnipotence - - Kind of what I figured, sources talking about Russians being ″discriminated″ and the Russian state being their saviour is A-OK, but anything actually relevant from the past decade is falsely labelled WP:SYNTH (the second time in a short period that Mellk has done this with content he doesn't like). So let's abide by WP:ONUS and gain a consensus on how this material can be added to the article

I will not bring up any of the other stuff he said to me. If anybody wants to know his actual behavioral pattern, I would once again suggest them to scroll through this talk page discussion and catch-up with his actions previously on the Russia article. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 14:08, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean I'm not even sure what to say here, is this a normal way of speaking to/about someone? Because apparently people aren't seeing the issues I'm talking about regarding aspersions and personal attacks.

"where anything remotely positive about Russia on the country article itself is to be challenged or tagged. Anybody opposing that action is a Russian bot or a state-sponsored troll/farm bot. Something he has subtly suggested I am MULTIPLE times. Those were personal attacks."

Please provide diffs for your above statement, because I'm genuinely trying to remember anything like it and can't quite do so, but you seem very sure. TylerBurden (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

1. Fix the problem instead of casting aspersions and personal attacks because you are upset you don't get to sit around on Wikipedia and promote the Russian economy with your WP:SYNTH. - Literally yesterday.

2. ...it is obvious how you spend your time editing Wikipedia and what narratives you approve of... also ..."You want to exacerbate the amount of control Russia has of Ukraine after 4 years of warfare..."

3. ...which was replaced with details regarding percentage (in combination with fraction for some reason, I suppose 20% doesn't sound as impressive)...

All pointing towards one thing. You make the judgement here. I find it ironic that the main focus of this thread was to discuss my "personal attacks" from a dude who has indirectly called me a Russian state asset/bot multiple times constantly. That too because he cannot handle reliable, institutional data or information because it clashes with his personal views. @Chipmunkdavis: @AirshipJungleman29: @Mellk: @Glebushko0703: @LordCollaboration: Swoonfed ^(Ping) 16:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

How does this support your actual claims? If you want make these accusations, you are going to need to do better. For full disclosure, I absolutely do not believe you are a Russian state asset/bot. TylerBurden (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

CMD, with respect, the situation on Dmitry Donskoy was one of WP:NPOV concern, as a significant aspect in coverage of the "relic" was being specifically kept out of the article. I understand you took issue with me removing the source which you added, but the reason as to why I did so was explained, I attempted to present all these aspects (including the official Russian denial of actually losing the relic) but to no avail.

Nonetheless I hear you and appreciate a civil analysis and perspective, unlike whatever else is going on here, despite claims made about me I do not consider myself a "saint" and I too can certainly make mistakes. The reason I started this discussion is because Swoonfed has proven to consistently lose their cool and violate WP:CIVIL on this specific article, and shows no signs of even acknowledging this, they're now also just straight up inventing things about me (like removing anything "positive" about Russia, accusing people of being "bots", etc).

As I said, I do my best to abide by Wikipedia's actual policies when it comes to these topics, as I happen to believe in them. If all these accusations about me were to be true, I believe you would find me arguing against WP:RS a lot more often and I would have been banned ages ago. Maybe I allow disgust about the killing of civilians/children etc to slip into edit summaries sometimes, but it's a pretty tough subject to cover. It's made more difficult by the fact that there is clearly a WP:FRINGE of Wikipedia editors supporting the country that is doing this, however subtle they may attempt to be. And I believe it is generally a subject pretty neglected by admins as other events took spotlight. TylerBurden (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Earlier in the year no action was taken at AE because Tyler will be held to his promise to do better in the topic area. In my view they have not really changed their approach. A couple months ago, this battleground approach was again noted at AE and their response was to reluctantly follow what an admin told them to do regarding a link to a video on their user page, although they decided to write in the edit summary: Wikipedia, the website where you can be an open vatnik but a censored YouTube video is a bridge too far.

See for example this discussion that was started on TylerBurden's talk page last month by K.e.coffman about personalizing disputes. This response on their talk page to getting a barnstar also seems to be indicative of the battleground behavior in the topic area. Mellk (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Mellk obviously closely follows my editing, this is for full disclosure, the editor that refused to allow information about a Russian relic being lost in Ukraine on Dmitry Donskoy, though they were fine with other WP:NEWSORG about the relic being sent to Ukraine.

And yes, I do find it absurd that editors are allowed to have infoboxes promoting Russian WP:FRINGE narratives or claiming to be active Russian military servicemen but a censored YouTube video is not, but that's a wider issue on the website. TylerBurden (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I reverted you because this was simply reporting unverified Telegram claims, but you immediately resorted to personalizing the dispute, accusing me of editing tendentiously, then acting bizarrely and making up reasons for reverting you. I asked you to take this to DR, but you decided not to.

As already evidenced in this thread, you cannot edit neutrally in the topic area and have avoided sanctions on the condition of improving your behavior (you already received a logged warning some time ago for edit warring, so the sub-standard behavior has been going on for years now). A topic ban or some kind of editing restriction is therefore appropriate. Mellk (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it was including a widely covered view by sources that are often used by reliable sources such as the Institute for the Study of War (when it comes to the war, some of these established Russian channels are much more reliable than official Kremlin channels, even though they are pro-Russian). The fact that this received significant coverage in secondary references was established, but new reasons would be repeatedly made up to keep it out of the article.

Per WP:NPOV: "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

If we look at actual policy here instead of your personal opinions, I don't see how you are going to make a case about neutrality. TylerBurden (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I have already explained why I disagree (ISW was not mentioned anywhere in the discussion). You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. If it is so obvious, you could have taken it to DR. Mellk (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Early this year, Swoonfed made a comment suggesting I don't understand the English language: Some here probably don't grasp the English language I commented on their talk page, but they didn't seem to take it particularly seriously. Based on their comment in this thread, it does not seem like this has improved (He is, to put it simply, very anti-Russian, he's a provocateur who constantly practises snark-talking to come off as witty and gaslights to get a reaction, etc.) I don't think these comments are remotely acceptable. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Talking about "remotely acceptable" - how is TylerBurden's comment from yesterday not blatant provocation and an indirect personal attack? Fix the problem instead of casting aspersions and personal attacks because you are upset you don't get to sit around on Wikipedia and promote the Russian economy with your WP:SYNTH. This is blatant misinformation. He's subtly calling me a Russian misinformation bot. Based on his rhetoric, I work for the Kremlin.

TylerBurden seems to not understand what WP:SYNTH actually is and uses that label for anything and everything that he does not like or opposes. Well, I guess I'm "promoting" the Russian economy by updating IMF economic data in the infobox. I will ask one question, what warrants a reaction like this over institutional data? Talk about self-control and so-called "maturity" or whatever. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 16:38, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe an answer is needed from an admin at this point confirming that the way you are speaking is fine. Can an admin confirm this or no? TylerBurden (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, with all fairness he did say Some here probably don't grasp the English language, and if WP:SYNTH applies to diffs, we shouldn't interpret them so arbitrarily.

Unrelated question: Aren't information notices something uninvolved editors should put on user pages, informing them of violations? You essentially informed user that you "noticed" comments they intended you to notice, if I understand this correctly. Gigman (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

What are you even on about? TylerBurden (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to withdraw from this discussion, but seeing Tyler's recent comments and the way he interacts with participators, I checked his history:

@Mellk already mentioned the dispute with user K.e.coffman last month, when they posted "Personalising disputes" on Tyler's talk page , and Tyler replied to them No, they are not personal attacks .

But this is not the only recent case. Earlier in April, different user Snowmanonahoe posted a topic on Tyler's page titled "Personal attacks" , which was removed by Tyler 5 minutes later with diff I'm not going to engage with this, you don't get to say what I'm insinuating, which is ironically a WP:AGF violation

Those are the same patterns as we see here. Persistent personal attacks and denial with accusation of good faith failure once they're confronted. I'd appreciate if users @K.e.coffman and @Snowmanonahoe could chime in and explain what was going on. Gigman (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Another rather rude message I spotted is from 2025, when Tyler replied to @Smeagol 17 - "Perfectly good edits" yea sure, in whatever world you live in . I don't want to speculate, but I won't be surprised if I find more of such cases as I scrutinize deeper. No formal admissions, no apologies, no sanctions. Gigman (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are intrested in TylerBurden's discussion style, you can read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pokrovsk_offensive#ISW_summary, for example. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The relevant section in my case is Talk:Lie#On Vranyo, a discussion involving TylerBurden for which I offered a 3O. Deliberate Baobab removed a piece of information on "vranyo" from the article, TylerBurden restored it, and then Baobab started a talk page discussion. This came after Baobab got Vranyo, an article TylerBurden created, deleted last November as their first edit. Some quotes:

• there is nothing to be added and really to be said here other than that this is a continued WP:SPA effort. Pretty severe BITE violation in my opinion, with the circumstances of Baobab having gotten the article on vranyo deleted noted.
• no, not going to remove it unless an editor in good standing agrees. A personal attack; this statement implies that TylerBurden has discounted Baobab's opinion because he considers them not to be an editor in 'good standing'.
• Alaexis is indeed an experienced editor, and also has a long track record of aligning with pro-Russian interests on Wikipedia, so I don't by any means take their words as gospel when advocating about the unreliability of sources that describe a negative aspect of Russian society. Similarly, a personal attack against Alaexis.

Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:05, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, they were told about this before... Mellk (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it will be right to notify @Alaexis since we're talking about them and wait for TylerBurden's response. Gigman (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Re the quote in question, I think it would've made for a more productive discussion if u:TylerBurden engaged with the substance of my argument. Alaexis_¿question? 00:11, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The editor Deliberate Baobab is by definition a WP:SPA though, their sole activity on the English Wikipedia has been about vranyo. I think this is a pretty signficant thing to overlook. TylerBurden (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with being an SPA, nor does being one give you clearance to personally attack them. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:23, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The important part of SPA (for me, at least) is the P - are they here to promote, for example, or are they just interested in one particular topic?

Do they want negative info removed about an entity or have they noticed something whilst reading Wikipedia and want to improve the article they read?

Does the P violate any policies or guidelines? The WP:SPA page is undoubtedly useful, but we need to remember that it's an informational essay, not Wikipedia policy. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:49, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Going through his page to find and tag people who have had problems with him, openly without even knowing the context seems like canvassing to me. You have linked to at least *four* different users with problems with Tyler at this point. This is particularly odd since I just complained about you making accusations against me without bothering to read the context of the diffs not less than 24 hours ago. And this with two users you had problems with before your CBAN. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I was citing diffs and users involved in them regardless, and according to policies I should've notified them. I wasn't the first nor the only one doing that here either. You can challenge this discussion and raise your concerns, but since you seem to be the only user in this thread sympathetic to TylerBurden so far, I suggest you wait to avoid any misunderstandings. Gigman (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

I have made a total of 2 comments in this thread. You have made, by my count, 17. I think I will be okay.

One of my comments did not mention Tyler at all and was rather my experience with Swoonfed, and the other was my concern above about potential canvassing. LordCollaboration (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

By all means let them, the aforementioned fringe group would find their way here anyway, as opportunities to get me banned is probably pretty high on their Christmas list. TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Has a consensus been reached at Russia's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

The last time I checked it stalled. GoodDay, with due respect but this discussion is about Swoonfed and TylerBurden, if you have a statement to make regarding their conduct, please feel free to share. Gigman (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Derogatory statements by User:Hess-ACuber

Persistent addition of unsourced content by ~2026-55341-25

Jailer 2

ChompyTheGogoat deleted content from Variety India, calling it "unreliable" (seriously? WP:VARIETY should apply), deleted more reliable refs in an under-construction section rather than add content, made a baseless claim about there being LLM-added content, and changed content to match the second source (which should never have been added as it is tainted) rather than the first reliable source as seen here. Amidst all this, a good user MNWiki845 has been blocked on accusations of using LLMs to write the article when I can't find proof he did. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Reminder that notifying the subjects of the AN/I threads is a requirement. I'm not going to do it for you like I see so many others do for others. - Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

This page is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." You've barely tried to discuss the issue with them, instead reporting them as a vandal three minutes after posting to their talk page, and then telling them to discuss the changes in your ANI report. ANI is the last stop when all efforts have failed, not a first step in content dispute. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. FWIW, I would not include a brand-new title Variety India under WP:VARIETY, that applies to the original entity which has many years of reliable content. The Indian version does not (yet). Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism, seriously?? Jesus H. Christ.

What I actually said is that Variety India is WP:FRUIT of Sacnilk, as per the discussion here, which is not considered a reliable source according to the relevant task force, while the one that actually gives the figure included in the article is. Unless you're referring to the WP:TIMESOFINDIA source that is cited repeatedly for the entire unnecessary section that does nothing but discuss outdated income figures that change every five minutes, which is considered even MORE unreliable according to larger consensus across English Wikipedia.

We've attempted to reexamine the reliability of Sacnilk (and indeed all sources that actually give independent figures), but with little response | from the wider community, so current consensus is to follow the table at ICTF. All I'm doing is enforcing that.

As far as the LLM insertions, Wikiblame traced it to one of their edits, so if that's incorrect take it up with the tool. When I went to look at their page the first thing I saw was LLM warnings being ignored, and the corresponding AINB report mentioned their entire edit history, so dropping a block at least until we got a handle on how much content was affected seemed only prudent - and presumably the blocking admin agreed, since I am not an admin and could not have done so unilaterally.

Nothing about this justifies at ANI report and certainly not AIV - over a sourcing dispute, seriously?? - so I'm requesting a boomerang warning for misuse of noticeboards. I was asleep during the time between your first comment and this report. The kicker is that I don't even care about all of this. Not even a little. Zero fucks given about the entire topic area. The only reason I'm attempting to police it (based on current consensus and what the sources say, not personal bias) is because no one else seems to care that it's rife with UPE and unsourced content - including you. At the absolute bare minimum adding a string of refs with no content is inappropriate, and instead of addressing it you just fixed their formatting for some reason?? It certainly isn't my job to add their content for them, and you clearly weren't willing to do so either, so they served no purpose except to make the article look messy. Wikipedia is not a link repository. You also ignored the large sections of the article that were unsourced - like all editors in this topic area - despite being all over the edit history. And now the lede that I correctly changed to match the actual sources has been changed back to an inaccurate WP:NPOV violation. Maybe we should be looking into your edit history.

You want to turn people off of trying to fight vandalism? This is a great way to do it. We have a whole corner of Wikipedia that's chock full of WP:PROMO and everyone's decided to just roll with it. Not sure why I even bother. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 13:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I have a longstanding belief that Indian cinema needs to be under ECR just like IMH and caste due to this exact mess. Non-Indians really underestimate the level of passion and identity tied up in Indian cinema, both in the north and south. Athanelar (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Being a non-Indian, it is due to this exact mess that I have learned that and also acquired the belief that Indian cinema should really be a CTOP under ECR. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:52, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I raised the idea at VPR 6 months ago but it never got any traction and it got archived, I'd definitely be happy to have that discussion again. Athanelar (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

notify me somehow if you do start it again, i didn't see it last time. ‑‑gurkubondinn 10:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Indian cinema CTOP - 2 ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 19:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Amidst all this, a good user MNWiki845 has been blocked on accusations of using LLMs to write the article when I can't find proof he did

You obviously didn't look very hard, then, because their filter log is full of indicators of AI use, including ChatGPT params in Special:AbuseLog/44792846, ```wikitext in Special:AbuseLog/45273474 (which is a G15 speedy deletion criterion), and such. All of this is also mentioned in the AINB topic. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved, I thank all the administrators who helped me resolve this and listened my point of view. Some misunderstandings and lack of communication from my side was there for which I apologise. That could have been avoided. MNWiki845 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:VARIETY shouldn't apply here. That was a discussion from 2016 about Variety, and that discussion can not have considered publications that Variety has licensed use of its name. Vanity Australia or Vanity India should need to be discussed and evaluated on their own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

In this case I'm not even challenging the overall reliability, but only their WP:FRUIT box office figures - which are outdated and don't match the listed figure in the article anyway (which is cited to an accepted source), making it entirely useless. People are straight up obsessed with these numbers, but usually they want to make them higher, not lower! ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:08, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I see the issue has been resolved. This discussion may be archived. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Your conduct regarding it has not. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 16:36, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I looked at some of Kailash's contributions, and besides their poor conduct here, I think some other things need to be explained:

1. A mass set of reverts on 2026-09-30, where they reverted many edits by a user, citing MOS:INDICSCRIPT, instead of changing the text to IPA like the page suggests, e.g. here.
2. Reverting content with no explanation, such as here: 1 2

From what I can tell, they tend to overrevert, often with no explanation. I left them a notice on a similar instance, where I added a template asking editors to clarify what "prints" meant, and they simply reverted me, and I left them a message, to which I never received any response. Along with the fact that this user has reported the user to AIV in this instance instead of discussing a pure content dispute, I think that we should let them off with a warning. If they continue this, sanctions can be decided at a later time.

And no, I don't think this discussion is ready to be archived. --ABx11 (she/they) 23:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

MOS:INDICSCRIPT instructs editors not to use Indic script, it doesn't suggest that other editors convert instances of it, any more than WP:NOR requires other editors to clean up original research by searching for sources that could support it. With that logic, all bad edits would be required to remain in place until mitigated. IPA is used by linguists and lexicographers; converting words—foreign words no less—is not something to expect the vast majority of editors to be able to do. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

More disruptive editing by Matt574: incorrect additions, bad sourcing, specious block appeals, etc.

Matt574 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) See the last ANI thread on this user back in May, which resulted in them being indefinitely blocked from creating articles, moving pages, and uploading pictures. I would suggest considering upgrading that to a full indefblock. Just today, Matt574 went to the article about the jazz singer Mavis Rivers (1929–1992) and added that her father was born in 1938 , perhaps a mixup between her similarly named father and brother, but it's an error that a check against the article's own dates would have caught. (That edit was sourced to a family search website, which isn't the best type of source here). Also, in the last three weeks there's addition of an unsourced birthdate to a biography of a living person and a swathe of unsourced book analysis (I reverted all of this user's edits to that article because even the sourced additions had excessive detail). As noted on their talk page (permalink), they have a habit of removing notices from it (which is allowed, but makes it more difficult to track what they've been warned for). However, just the sections there now are something of a concern. On one of their last talk page messages, in response to messages by admins replying to one of their four block appeals, they said "I think I am fully competent and able to understand which sources are reliable.". However, the diffs above suggest that the sourcing problems are continuing. Also pinging the previous users involved in the last ANI: @Nfutvol, Timtrent, and Star Mississippi:, the latter being the blocking admin, but I'd understand if they wouldn't directly intervene per this comment. Graham87 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for the ping, Graham87. I have had no interactions with them since that time, and have no value to add to this discussion. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Graham87 for the ping.

I don't think Matt fully understands the issues. I'm not sure if this is an issue of stubbornness or competence, but I would support an increased block to cover mainspace. My hope with the May block was that they'd learn but they don't appear to have per the edits Graham cites above and per their arguments that they were wrongly blocked. Star Mississippi 13:43, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi: whatever the reason, Matt574 is very sloppy with sourcing, has been given ample time to imrprove, and since it appears their work needs to be checked, it's best to do it with a systematic process of WP:EDITREQUESTs. Edits like this unsourced editorializing simply shouldn't be happening so often with an editor with more than a thousand edits . And this one was coming off other reverts for unsourced personal opinion or poor sourcing in the same article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Given the bizarre sourcing for today's edit (Special:Diff/1380894120), which looks like trolling, I have blocked Matt from article space. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The first of those "sources" quotes the beginning of Colossal Cave Adventure. (I knew my experience of 50-year-old text-based video games would come in handy some day.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: Thanks, sounds sensible. @Narky Blert: If you click on the date, you'll get more of those, most of which I recognised. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I did not realize that the source was a non-reliable source. Matt574 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@Matt574: Judging buy the URL, did you perhaps mean to link to this page from Theatricalia and instead get trapped in an AI honeypot? Theatricalia is a personal website and is therefore not a reliable source either. Not to mention that using AI (more specifically large language models) to write article content is strictly prohibited with a few narrow exceptions, which do not include what you're doing. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I found another addition of a link to that site in this edit to The Designated Mourner. I might ask somewhere AI-related about it. Graham87 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Done, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup § AI honeypot site, probably one of many. I wonder if blacklisting/filtering would be a good idea. Graham87 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I did not know what the term "honeypot" meant, that's a new term I haven't heard. Matt574 (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Per this comment by @OutsideNormality:, the Citoid citation generation service used by the RefToollbar and VisualEditor generates the bogous site links even if the editor tries to add a link to Theatricalia.com. I get the impression that Theatricalia is about on-par with, say, FindAGrave in terms of usage here (i.e. it's OK in external links but not so much as a ref). Either way, this is getting beyond the scope of either this board or the AI cleanup page, I think. But it might be worth pinging the blocking admin @Rsjaffe:, even though I'm lukewarm about modifying the block at this point. Graham87 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I’d like to see Matt demonstrate some knowledge of proper sourcing through good edit requests prior to consideration of lifting the mainspace block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Tran tuan 2511: LLM use and NOENGAGE

• Tran tuan 2511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dung 11 gio 30 phut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked sock for reference)

Tran tuan 2511 appears to be using LLM

• Special:Diff/1380875594 (that edit summary)
• Special:Diff/1379909657 (everything)
  • Previous edits Special:Diff/1372556654 and Special:Diff/1372582935 have similar problems in terms of incomplete citations, which leads me to believe that these two edits were affected by LLMs too.

There had been signs of LLM usage before: going back to at least earlier this year:

• User_talk:Tran_tuan_2511#The_reason_for_unblock_request (use of LLM to generate a talk page reply)
• Special:Diff/1353942714 (Google Gemini link on user page)
• Special:Diff/1340393945 (WP:AICITESTYLE)
• Special:Diff/1339399320 (warning for WP:AIIMAGE)

Since they started editing in September 2025, the editor has also, barely, used user talk pages, theirs or otherwise.

• Tran tuan 2511 has 2
  • Special:Diff/1332382457: affixing a warning template
  • Special:Diff/1372764145: the LLM-generated talk page reply above
• Dung 11 gio 30 phut has 1
  • Special:Diff/1364925430: possibly the only talk page reply in their own words, and suggests poor English-language proficiency

I have attempted to interact with the editor on their talk page multiple times and received no replies. The latest example is that on 12 October I asked for clarification for their LLM usage, and on 18 October they were apparently back to using LLM. They have only replied to blocks or threats of blocks.

I suspect the lack of communication and LLM use masks a competence issue, but without communication it's hard to determine what sort of help they may be in the position to receive, assuming they're not just ignoring everything that is being said. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:27, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

cleanup at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Tran tuan 2511 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Tran_tuan_2511 made a (preemptive?) unblock request on their talk page with the following: I used Gemini to translate and find references because my English ability is limited. Due to my carelessness and lack of knowledge of the guidelines, I accidentally left the AI link in the article. I completely accept responsibility for this mistake and deeply regret this incident. Aside from that I'm skeptical that they wrote that themselves, I don't think that addresses how Special:Diff/1379909657 came around. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:CIR is relevant here? Beta Beta Beta - talk 02:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

That would be my guess. I don't think they are going to willingly show up in ANI, if past behaviour is any indication.

I also note that in recent edits, the problem with incomplete/inaccurate citations is continuing in Special:Diff/1381442390 (see ref named "Rifles originating in Sudan"; the source URL does not point to the referenced document.) The inconsistency is perplexing; sometimes they get it right, and then sometimes they don't. It does lead me to believe that they are using a tool and not bothering to double-check the output. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 16:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks and aspersions by Sladen

Sladen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some reason or another has decided to take severe umbrage with what is nothing more than the most minor of disputes about the inclusion of a paragraph in an article. I would have been happy to discuss were it not for them opening a talk page discussion with the heading disruptive editing by Danners430, and the pointy comment So, Danners430, how are we going to solve this? followed by the completely bizarre and unfounded claim of if you are unable to explain why a bot is running in your name

I am, obviously, willing to discuss matters of content. I am not however willing to converse with editors that freely fling personal attacks and aspersions about without care. I’m asking that someone reminds Sladen of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and that they strike their comments. Perhaps then a civil discussion can take place. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello again Danners430 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), thanks for bringing your edits to ANI. I think we would all be grateful to learn about the thinking behind the use of Twinkle Huggle revert/rollback^{[ Special:Diff/1381011165 ]} to re-introduce prior (unsupervised) bot breakage.^{[ Special:Diff/1363076313 ]}. It is great when editors get inspired by Wikipedia and start contributing content to topics and articles in a wide variety of ways. —Sladen (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

First, I do not use Huggle. I never have. Second, until you retract your personal attack (accusing me of being a bot or having a bot linked to my account), you can expect no further interaction from me. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, thank you for responding here on WP:ANI, and thank you for the correction; Special:Diff/1381011165 states Twinkle (not Huggle); also now corrected above. Returning to the original breakage: Special:Diff/1363076313 we can observe the edit summary was "(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Danners430 - 29536)". —Sladen (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

This is User:InternetArchiveBot, which every editor can use to run on a single page. When a ref has url= example.com, then the bot is likely to have an issue with this. Changing it to "url=." isn't much better probably. Fram (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue with the citation, it stemmed from a incorrect use of the |archive-url= parameter. The original URL always goes in the |url= field, even if the url is an archive of the work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ActivelyDisinterested. Hopefully it won't get reverted again. —Sladen (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Fram, indeed, InternetArchiveBot may be used by editors, after opting-in, subject to:

1. "…IABotManagementConsole needs permission to perform the following actions on your behalf…" —acknowledgement required one time (OAuth authorisation)
2. "…an edit may be made on your behalf immediately on the submitted article if the bot found something." followed by "You are responsible for edits made by the tool at your request." —acknowledgement required every single time

Yet, we have:

1. explicitly running IABot by choice
2. not checking the resulting edit
3. relying on others to repair the edit
4. reverting back (to the buggy edit)—as nearly always
5. passing up an opportunity to engage on an article Talk: page (Special:Diff/1381075470)
6. passing up an opportunity to engage via User talk: (Special:Diff/1381075291)
7. opening at ANI
8. passing up an opportunity to engage on ANI

Is this a persistent pattern? Well maybe; a week ago, wbm1058 dropped the observation (Special:Diff/1380216601) that …What these two threads have in common is that both … were started by Danners430 who apparently is abusing ANI in order to accuse editors of disruption … to force their position on the content …". —Sladen (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

1. I did not pass up the opportunity to discuss - I took umbrage to your aspersions and personal attacks, which by the way you have still not struck or even addressed. I told you, quite clearly, that once you struck the baseless accusation of disruptive editing we could have a perfectly civil conversation about what at the end of the day is a minor content dispute - the sort that happens on a daily basis and is usually resolved. I disagreed on some content which you added, and reverted it. You took the best case position and started a discussion - however you instantly jumped to accusations of disruptive editing, and left a very pointy talk page message (linked and copied above). When you doubled down on those accusations, and inserted another accusation of being a bot (if you are unable to explain why a bot is running in your name), without any explanation or basis, I quite simply took the decision that engaging further would not be constructive until you backed down from these claims. Hence the ANI thread.
2. You inserted yourself into a discussion on my talk page, completely unrelated to any discussion, after the ANI had already been opened. I reserve the right, as does every editor, to remove content from my talk page - which I chose to do, as your comment was totally unrelated to the discussion you had posted in, as well as a desire not to split discussions. The discussion about conduct is here on ANI, not my talk page.

As I stated on the article talk and in my initial post, once you withdraw your personal attacks and baseless accusations, I am more than happy to engage in a civil conversation on the article talk page regarding the matter of content. When you start a discussion about content with aspersions and accusations towards another editor, a civil discussion cannot take place, it is as simple as that.

The ball is in your court here - withdraw your baseless accusations, and we can discuss the content dispute. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, IABot is a bot, and performed a (buggy) edit in the name of "Danners430". Those are indisputable. What's lacking is an explanation for (a) not checking bot edits, (b) re-inserting the same (buggy) edit, using Twinkle rollback — despite recent assurances given to Commander Keane in Special:Diff/1380044924. —Sladen (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The rollback is a content dispute - one which I want to resolve, but can’t due to your continued doubling down on the previously described aspersions and personal attacks. You continue to not address your behaviour in that thread - until you do, the content dispute will go unresolved as I explicitly refuse to engage with threads which start with such aspersions. Retract your accusations and aspersions and we can talk. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:40, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, we can read above that ActivelyDisinterested repaired the (buggy) citation damage with Special:Diff/1381168964. —Sladen (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The issue with the citation was two fold, it was wrong to begin with, and archive bot broke it further. My repairing of it was a content matter, and shouldn't be seen as supporting either side of a behavioural dispute. Archive bot wasn't really at fault, as it correctly added an archive for the link in the |url= parameter. The link in |url= being wrong, and so the the archive being wrong could have been fixed by either of you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

IABot did exactly what it was designed to do - it added an archive link to the URL that was in the citation in question. That URL turns out to have been erroneous... a little digging finds it was in fact added by yourself , and you even tagged it with url-status=unfit - why you saw fit to add a false URL and knowingly tag it as unfit I don't know, but then complaining about a bot working as designed and archiving the URL you provided seems very hypocritical. But again - this is the content discussion that I have repeatedly said I am willing to have with a civil editor, not one that is throwing accusations and aspersions about. So far I count no less than seven messages where you have repeatedly ignored the original topic of this discussion (and unnecessarily pinged editors for no apparent reason) - your conduct in opening a ridiculously pointy discussion, where the very header of the discussion accused another editor, baselessly, of disruptive editing. Either you start addressing your conduct, or we're looking at WP:ICANTHEARYOU here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Danners430, the warning on "IABot" is unambiguously clear "You are responsible for edits made by the tool at your request."; hence, the request to "… to explain why a bot is running in your name, causing disruption (and when other clean it up), you are reinserting those broken edits, then it's a pretty clear case of being disruptive.". One could have answered that fairly easily (lack of oversight checking the result, twice, or arguing that the input was sub-optimal, twice — instead the response above "… (accusing me of being a bot or having a bot linked to my account)" — not something that was done. —Sladen (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Why did you link example.com as the URL of that source to begin with? Skyshiftertalk 22:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Skyshifter, ref was added in Special:Diff/1326139371 (in December 2025) and cites a copy of The Engineer from 1875. Using the combo |url-status=unfit|url=faux|archive-url=real enables the display of |archive-date="Archived from the original on 11 March 2021" in addition to the usual |date= and |access-date="Retrieved 7 December 2025" rendering; here indicating the 146-year gap between original publication and scan. —Sladen (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apologies if I'm missing something as it's rather late here, but are you insisting that Danners430 justify running an approved bot that archived an error that you (apparently) caused?

If so then yes, you both screwed up, IMO one moreso than the other (I'm not saying which, I hope it's obvious).

ANI isn't a one-way street, I'm concerned that you still haven't acknowledged that you caused this problem in the first place, yet are laser-focused on it being someone else's responsibility.

You both were in error here, but you're coming at this from an unnecessarily confrontational standpoint that escalated things beyond where they needed to be. I don't see this as opportunity to engage, it feels like a confrontation from someone who's already made their decision and isn't going to be pleasant to approach.

If you'd have talked about this calmly (and less publicly - e.g. a user talk page message like "hey, you introduced this error, can you tell me what happened/take extra care in future?") then this could have been resolved quietly between the two of you - this could have been resolved in maybe ten minutes without half a dozen other editors having to get involved.

• @Danners430 please take extra care when using IABot.
• @Sladen please assume good faith by default and take extra care when adding citations.

If you can both agree to this, I hope we can all move on and get back to editing? Even if only one of you made an mistake, it still shouldn't have come to this point.

Unless there's anything more than this one single edit, then I don't see any need for sanctions on either side (or any admin intervention at all) and hope everyone can calm down a little and learn from what happened. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:Not here regarding @Emeraldflames

User:FavCourtier

COMMUNITY BANNED

There is clear consensus here for a community ban for FavCourtier/LaraLev33. Star Mississippi 02:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Large number of AI-generated or at least undisclosed AI-assisted draft submissions in AFC. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash If you haven't yet, you should file this at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I have created a barebones filing for you at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/FavCourtier; you're welcome to respond to my canvassing chime in there. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 05:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I have been with Wikipedia for more than 13 years editing and writing a lot. Recently only topics of Holocaust-surviving people have been shut down, like it started in May/June with Galina Goncharko one single entry, she was a Ukrainian-Russian Holocaust surviving artist. All of my entries qualify completely to 100%, I am a trained researcher but working freelance still with memorial foundations in UK and Germany or USA. We also write a lot about artistic people or simply collect knowledge-based facts from our archives like at Buchenwald or Dachau.

I know some of the people I've been writing about but we are not friends, just simply passers-by. Some people are already long deceased and I ask you not to disregard the fact that Holocuast or Shoa or refugees survivors must be given a lot of are and attention. Not a lot of data is collected about those people. My prior account was blocked by some of your editors and I need to appeal but I don't go around often in Wikipedia and I don't know how to do it. Right now Russian Wikipedia editors don't allow anything to be published on Holocaust, Stalin victims (even confirmed by any governments) or anybody else. What is going on with US Wikipedia? If it turns out you are denying some important topics, we will have to file appeals but urgently. I know Germany's top government that woudl notify Wikimedia Foundation ASAP if this will occur once more again.

These are the articles that must be reviewed ASAP, some are simple translations from English. If you are unfamiliar with the topics of Holocaust or don't know how to handle those, please edit only those parts that you feel more comfortable about, abstain from comments which are belittling us all, me and whoever survives this traumatic experience:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Walter_Joelsen (German priest and Holocaust survivor, collaborator at Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site, collaborated with Lara Kempbell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elija_Bossler (German nun and collaborator at Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site, collaborated with Lara Kempbell)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simon_(Semyon)_Brandvain (American therapist, Jewish-Ukrainian Holocaust survivor, doctor, humanitarian worker at a post-war hospital, brother to Lev Kryzhov (Brandvain)

Article in ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD,_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lev_Kryzhov_(Brandvain) (Jewish-Ukrainian Holocaust survivor, published scientist, researcher, Stalin era oppressed person), not being welcomed in Russian Wikipedia, publication is being delayed despite meeting all notability criteria, he needed to exchange his family name to be recognized as scientist, brother of Simon Brandvain according to our research, submitted documents by surviving family members and ancestry.com, all confirmed records, great-grandfather to Lara Kempbell

Article in ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%B2_(%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Galina_(Hanna)_Goncharko (Ukrainian Holocaust survivor, published author and female journalist, researcher, animal rescuer, environmental activist) - Russian Wikipedia blocks her profile again despite,

Article in ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D1%8C%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lara_Kempbell (American actress, author, female journalist, animal rescuer, environmental activist, former activist with Dachau concentration camp memorial site, grand-daughter to Galina (Hanna) Goncharko and relative to Lev Kryzhov (Brandvain) and to Simon (Semyon) Brandvain) - Russian Wikipedia blocked

Article in ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D1%8D%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BB FavCourtier (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Walter Joelsen: it is a translation of already published article in German:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Joelsen

Elija Bossler it is too an interpretation of already published article in German:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elija_Bo%C3%9Fler

Soon there will be more such articles. FavCourtier (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

p.s. I have a lot going on in the background, my children need to be fed and I have a regular job to feed those children, plus I co-own a humanitarian shelter. Please make sure all of the reviews go speedily and easily, we don't receive any additional funding to notify the publicity but it must be done ASAP of the atrocious situations over at Wikipedia that I have encountered since April 2026 but only now reported. If this continues, we'll be forced to file police reports for discrimination which occurs on Wikimedia and it will be shut down for several larger issues that have been occurring in the past, I will message Wikimedia Foundation about it, since none of the editors can comprehend where we are coming from or are not Holocaust survivors themselves neither have any among their relatives. FavCourtier (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Once more whoever is blocking and not improving the articles as you should - I offer you the topics and you help research or dismiss it from your attention, then so please understand this is my free time, we are working for very little money doing completely other jobs, whoever is helping my community. I own a shelter with 30 animals that must be fed and cleaned and no governmental funding is available. I write or help edit or translate these articles completely for free and in my spare time and you are already stealing much of my time by NOT admitting simply topics. FavCourtier (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

FavCourtier, you urgently need to read WP:NLT. Posting legal threats can only have one outcome, regardless of the merits or otherwise of any contributions. I suggest you immediately and unreservedly withdraw the above threat to 'file police reports' before you are blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Well we are mandated by law to report all criminal activity such as people denouncing Holocaust or Shoah or Stalinism or other etiquette problems. Not blocking their accounts. So either removing those people from working on this topic or simply addressing this with Wikimedia Foundation are the proper reactions or going straight to the FBI or Interpol, since Wikipedia should not be hosting discrimination or anti-semitic people or even all those who abuse our power and continue portraying themselves as editors when in fact they have very little experience.

Here are a few laws to cite:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination

Other Federal Statutes: Provisions under 5 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C. govern religious freedom, housing (HUD), credit, and public accommodation equality.

Section 1982 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1982): Protects all persons from race-based property and contract discrimination.

Equality Act 2010 UK

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition

EU Directives

Here is the Wikipedia policy on anti-semitism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Wikipedia Internal Policies: The English Wikipedia operates under draft non-discrimination principles (WP:DISCRIM / WP:NONDISCRIM) that prohibit hate speech, harassment, and discrimination based on identity attributes across content edits and interactions, with enforcement ranging from warnings to permanent site-wide blocks.

So whoever blocked my account was clearly anti-semitic or whoever is threatening to block it right now too. So please I warn you be careful with how you address my concerns, they go far above anything more, these are UNESCO and Interpol rules and regulations and common sense knowledge, not how to write or post or edit on Wikipedia.

If I have been hostile then only for the same reason as anybody in normal state of being: I have work to do and this is my volunteer time and I have 3 000 entires to be made from the Hebertshausen shooting range where a lot of people are still lying buried and we are uncovering their records until now, and more than 20 million missing folks during WWII and nobody knows their names for Christ's sake or Holy Jesus but they deserve to be mentioned, so that whoever can speed up this process please do do. I have been on Wikipedia much longer than most of the other editors who might edit more articles now but are not knowledgable about interrelated topics. FavCourtier (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Here is the Wikipedia policy on anti-semitism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism, that is not Wikipedia's policy on antisemitism.
• operates under draft non-discrimination principles, the fact that the drafts you refer to are drafts, means that they are not policies that Wikipedia operates under.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

You have some rather magical thinking when it comes to how law works. You have no cause of legal action against the WMF, whether it be a frivolous police report or a frivolous lawsuit, both of which can have significant legal or financial repercussions for you. I suggest you retract this legal threat with a strikethrough, because otherwise, you will likely be blocked by the first admin to read your edits.

We're not stealing any of your time; you freely donated it, and explicitly agreed to certain conditions of your participation by accepting the Terms of Use that was required to edit on this private website. You have no right to have anything you edit appear on Wikipedia or remain on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

FavCourtier besides what others have said this account seems to be only 5 days old on any language. If you've been writing and editing a lot for 13 years, please list your previous accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

If you are Special:Contributions/LaraLev33 you've already been told not to make legal threats before and been blocked so this is WP:Block evasion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

It most definitely is the same editor. Same topic area, same mention of running an animal shelter and so on. Athanelar (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne, please go ahead and ban this account, once more again, so that I or we all be forced to write to the FBI about all of this behavior. I want nothing but peace and quiet. Cannot you read that these are all translation articles of already existing articles on Wikipedia or those which are being publicly denied by Russian editors - while they are being anti-semitic or denying Holocaust or what not, maybe disliking the fact that they are being forced to edit this but not only about Russian people. Many people in Russia are very fascist-minded right now, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I work in holocaust memorial foundations in Germany and Sweden and we know what it is like - they delay or deny us our entries which is illegal. Holocaust or Stalin victims or removing one's memory is a recognized criminal activity. Please go and check all these rticles I have written over the past 10 years, or contributed to - due to me residing close to the foundations and I go and volunteer in their archives and sometimes even meet surviving people, like Mr. Walter Joelsen (who is now long deceased), or Ms. Elija Boßler, she is our loving caring nun here at this Catholic monastery, or Ms. Lara Kempbell whenever she came to attend to these events.

Just a few examples of the articles but on the same or similar topics I had been involved in:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schie%C3%9Fplatz_Hebertshausen (de)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schie%C3%9Fplatz_Hebertshausen (engl)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Gr%C3%BCber (de - contribute to, most are my photographs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Gr%C3%BCber (engl - written on my own)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Gr%C3%BCber (ru - written by our volunteer team)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sylten (de - contribute to)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sylten (ru - translated and written)

I can give you proof and show you credentials of my accounts if it needs to be. As you can see, I am not a fraudulent person and I am a licensed historian, I just don't work in this area but do it all for free, as a volunteer, because our Germany's government still saves funding which is understandable and doesn't want to employ anybody to write for Wikipedia, only re-post what has been done already in other public news sources.

Somebody really messed up with my appeals in May, I appealed and they were denied and somebody really anti-Holocaust or anti-female shut down this article even though all of the sources were provided. As you can see, I am not untrained with Wikipedia, and I have been around since 2013, just not editing continuously and researching in archives or in proper settings, like in governmental facilities like foundations where documents are being withheld, so some sources are still in paper format and I need to upload those onto Wikipedia which I had done in the past but somehow somebody started deleting those even though I am the license holder now, I have paperwork stating those documents were released for print.

Thank you for all of your love and care and attention. FavCourtier (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Given that FavCourtier has not only failed to retract the previous legal threat, but has added a new one, an indef block per WP:NLT seems self-evidently necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

You will violent Wikipedia internal rules, I am not the one breaking the laws, Wikipedia has strict anti-discrimination policies, so please adhere to those. I am not the one banning your accounts or preventing from these materials to be published which are fact and document-based or translations of well-known articles. Please go ahead and let's start the escalation or revisit the accounts and check for their German or Russian or Swedish alternatives.

Wikipedia Internal Policies: The English Wikipedia operates under draft non-discrimination principles (WP:DISCRIM / WP:NONDISCRIM) that prohibit hate speech, harassment, and discrimination based on identity attributes across content edits and interactions, with enforcement ranging from warnings to permanent site-wide blocks.

Well we are mandated by law to report all criminal activity such as people denouncing Holocaust or Shoah or Stalinism or other etiquette problems. Not blocking their accounts. So either removing those people from working on this topic or simply addressing this with Wikimedia Foundation are the proper reactions or going straight to the FBI or Interpol, since Wikipedia should not be hosting discrimination or anti-semitic people or even all those who abuse our power and continue portraying themselves as editors when in fact they have very little experience.

Here are a few laws to cite:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination

Other Federal Statutes: Provisions under 5 U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C. govern religious freedom, housing (HUD), credit, and public accommodation equality.

Section 1982 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1982): Protects all persons from race-based property and contract discrimination.

Equality Act 2010 UK

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition

EU Directives

Here is the Wikipedia policy on anti-semitism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism FavCourtier (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You've come here at least twice and both times you've independently earned a NLT block. Whatever complaints you made in May 2026 clearly haven't achieved anything. You can keep going down this unproductive route or you can stop making legal threats, stop using LLMs, stop editing promotionally and listen to what other editors are telling you and maybe achieve something. Your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump how long are you with Wikipedia?

You must be new, or if not, I do apologize.

Please go ahead and escalate this and I won't report you to the board, I'll be sending them the email right now to help us move ahead. Who is right? Is the law. YOu are focusing on the wrongful thinking, on HOW to publish and not WHAT is being offered. I gave you all of the links and whoever has been editing has not been careful, these are all translations of the already existing articles, please go ahead and read them carefully.

@Nil Einneor whoever, please go ahead and invite more experienced Wikipedia editors who work precisely on the topics of Shoah or Holocaust or whoever has written those several articles that I have listed onto you. This is the third time somebody is refusing to publish Holocaust-related topic, so this is a global concern now, we must understand why you are disregarding these important to us all historical or society topics or public proprietorship topics like animal care or animal shelters etc. FavCourtier (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtier, I'm not an administrator, but I hope what I'm about to say helps. We have never, and do not ever plan to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. However, what we won't accept is drafts or edits made using AI or an LLM model, like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, Grok, etc. While an edit may be beneficial, we have a manual of style.

I don't argue that you have ill-intent, but, we also have a policy against legal threats, like reporting someone to the FBI or Interpol. If you can maybe try rewriting your edits yourself, they may be accepted. I'm sure everyone here would prefer to have a reasonable conversation. If you need it, links can be provided to the respective policies. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 17:13, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Support legal threats, lack of WP:AGF to even consider that people might have legitimate editorial disagreements and no indication of backing down so far Giulio 07:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

FavCourtier is self-evidently a sockpuppet of the User:LaraLev33 account blocked in May this year for, you guessed it, making legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There's a WP:CHATBOTBLOCK in AbuseLog/45435142. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:26, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Given the relentless legal threats, the obvious sockpuppetry, the complete failure to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and the self-evident inability to take the slightest notice of anything they have been told, I'd say that AI slop was the least of our concerns with regard to this contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I just came here because I found the slop first and then found the ANI thread, so just adding that to the list of problems I guess. An AIN case has been opened anyway (not by me) to clean up whatever mess gets left behind. ‑‑gurkubondinn 07:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for the responses. I understand that concerns have been raised about my account history, editing approach, AI-assisted drafting, and the wording of my previous comments. I will refrain from making further legal threats or personal accusations in this discussion. My substantive concern remains the fair evaluation of historical material concerning Holocaust survivors, Jewish-Ukrainian family history, persecution, and memorial work. I would appreciate a clear, policy-based explanation of the editorial concerns relating to each draft, including its sources, notability, translation, and any necessary corrections. The drafts or corrections I have made include Walter Joelsen, Elija Bossler, Simon (Semyon) Brandvain, Lev Kryzhov (Brandvain), Galina (Hanna) Goncharko, and Lara Kempbell or Create!Summit or Klaus Fritsche or Jamie Lee Curtis or other interrelated topics. I have also provided links to related German- and Russian-language articles, almost all of those have been translated, and would welcome experienced editors' assistance in assessing the available documentation. I am willing to address specific sourcing, neutrality, notability, and AI-disclosure concerns, and to correct any issues identified. I also ask that any potential concern about discriminatory treatment be assessed on the evidence rather than assumed either way. Please direct me to the appropriate review and appeal procedures, including any applicable process for my previous account and existing drafts. I would like to resolve this constructively and ensure that the historical material is evaluated according to Wikipedia's applicable standards. Thank you. FavCourtier (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Log on to the previous account and make an unblock request where unambiguously withdrawn all your legal threats. Your previous unblock request didn't do that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a clear legal threat. I've blocked for legal threats. This does not preclude further discussion about a site ban or tying this account to User:LaraLev33, which, ironically enough, was blocked by me for legal threats. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

An AI-generated legal threat at that. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the articles you have pointed to in other languages FavCourtier/LaraLev33 should really have articles on the English Wikipedia, but we can't accept articles that are generated via LLMs and that lack the required sourcing. It would be great if you can submit an unblock request on your main account, fully apologising for sockpuppeting, withdrawing your legal threats, and agreeing not to use LLMs. There are plenty of individuals in English Wikipedia who can help you create the articles if you ask for the help. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Site-Ban

Unfortunately, the above post by User:FavCourtier speaks for itself and says that the user both lacks competence in the English language and makes legal threats. A site ban is in order.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for the responses. I understand that concerns have been raised about my account history, editing approach, AI-assisted drafting, and the wording of my previous comments. I will refrain from making further legal threats or personal accusations in this discussion. My substantive concern remains the fair evaluation of historical material concerning Holocaust survivors, Jewish-Ukrainian family history, persecution, and memorial work. I would appreciate a clear, policy-based explanation of the editorial concerns relating to each draft, including its sources, notability, translation, and any necessary corrections. The drafts I have identified include Walter Joelsen, Elija Bossler, Simon (Semyon) Brandvain, Lev Kryzhov (Brandvain), Galina (Hanna) Goncharko, and Lara Kempbell or Create!Summit or Klaus Fritsche or Jamie Lee Curtis or other interrelated topics. I have also provided links to related German- and Russian-language articles, almost all of those have been translated, and would welcome experienced editors' assistance in assessing the available documentation. I am willing to address specific sourcing, neutrality, notability, and AI-disclosure concerns, and to correct any issues identified. I also ask that any potential concern about discriminatory treatment be assessed on the evidence rather than assumed either way. Please direct me to the appropriate review and appeal procedures, including any applicable process for my previous account and existing drafts. I would like to resolve this constructively and ensure that the historical material is evaluated according to Wikipedia's applicable standards. Thank you. FavCourtier (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support. This is block evasion, legal threats, LLM use, and more.

  My prior account was blocked ...
  — User:FavCourtier 05:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

  FavCourtier should not edit unless this prior account is unblocked. ‑‑gurkubondinn 09:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment What has Stalinism to do with the Holocaust/Shoah? Denying the Holocaust means getting blocked. But Stalinism? Which country banned offending Stalinism? Now I see: they cannot write properly in English, they meant the opposite. Anyway, getting blocked is not the same as being discriminated. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment in addition to en.wiki, they're already blocked on de.wiki and ru.wiki, so I guess GLOCK is on the cards. BTW, does anyone know what this user's original account is? I'm assuming they've had multiple, if their editing goes back so many years. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support: Seamlessly transitioning from angry legal threats to AI slop comments (amazing how multiple WP:AITALKSIGNS have suddenly materialized all at once in the above comment), just a turducken of things not to do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support AI-generated legal threats are incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the legal threats don't seem to be AI generated, the slop above does Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

OK well AI-generated slop supported with legal threats are also incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Why should we tolerate someone who posts AI-generated legal threats to report us to Germany's top government, the FBI and Interpol? Declining AI-generated drafts about Holocaust survivors is not denying the Holocaust or violating UNESCO and Interpol rules or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equality Act 2010 UK, and weaponising false accusations like that is WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE behaviour. Helpful Cat🐈 14:34, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Note: The user being proposed to be banned is LaraLev33, whom FavCourtier was a sockpuppet of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support, whoever blocked my account was clearly anti-semitic is an appalling thing to have said. (The timestamp proves that that must relate to an earlier account.) I endorse others' objections to legal threats and AI use.

(Sidenote. A couple of years ago, I read of the death of a Holocaust survivor who I had met precisely once, and admired. I felt sure he must pass GNG. He did, and the article I started gets one or two views a day.} Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I missed that remark. I’m the one who blocked both accounts. All my relatives in Europe lived in Lithuania and were murdered in the Holocaust. That remark is both presumptuous and offensive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Support yeah if someone is using AI to bludgeon a convo aboht their ai usage they arent here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support From this editor's edits, they appear to be temperamentally incompatible with a collaborative project and linguistically incompatible with an encyclopedia that's written for readers of the English language. I don't see any significant mitigating factor. FavCourier no longer need worry about us "stealing" their time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I can see no possibility of this individual ever being a useful contributor to the English-language Wikipedia. Socking, wild and baseless accusations of antisemitism, a self-evident inability to communicate, and above all, a refusal to even try to take note of multiple attempts to explain to them the many issues their editing has raised all constitute behaviour combining the worst aspects of WP:CIR with WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support, anything will happen on Wikipedia nowadays. Beta Beta Beta - talk 07:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lucabluini

~2026-56249-91 (talk · contribs) WP:CIVIL

Asamboi - persistent disregard for editors raising talk page concerns regarding bare URLs

Asamboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a highly experienced editor, with 13 years service and 23k edits. Yet I have yet to see them format a citation anywhere, except in a few instances. Numerous editors have raised the matter on their talk page, both using templates and writing personal messages, and have offered solutions and advice - yet it has all gone unheeded, and in some cases simply summarily blanked from the page.

As recently as today, they continue adding bare URLs - and when challenged, in a discussion which is already over a year old on their talk page, responded with Deal with it. Myself and @RickyCourtney have offered suggestions and solutions, but they appear to have ignored them all. At this point the editing really crosses over into disruptive territory, since bare URLs form a cleanup job for other editors - and Asamboi’s dismissive attitude shown in their talk page shows they’re not willing to engage with the issue.

All myself and others want to do is for Asamboi to take the 5 seconds it takes to format a citation, be it with templates or links - there’s are numerous tools which generate them automatically, and it only takes 5 seconds to do manually… so why are they taking the express decision to simply dump bare URLs on pages and move on? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but formatting citations form bare URLs is something best done by bots. They should run over the pages and do the full pulldown and formatting. I don't see why we can't have a bot like Citationbot that runs like AnomieBOT does after the editing has been completed. That being said, if there are tools that do it, advertise them to people so they know, but be aware they may not work on all browsers/phones/OSes etc. And finally, it's better than nothing. We're never complete. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

So long as it's a valid link and an RS what's the big deal? At least it's a citation. I don't think it rises to the level of bringing it to ANI. Not everyone is going to edit everything to your satisfaction. -- Veggies (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Passing comment, apologies if this isn't allowed or anything. If asamboi has been editing for 13 years they should be leading by example and taking the extra five seconds to auto format a source. Leaving bare urls creates a burden of cleanup for others that should lie on asamboi. And the comment of "deal with it", refusing to hear the issue out, was inappropriate and a bit rude. ~2026-56339-91 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. And it should be common knowledge amongst experienced contributors that bare URLs are subject to link-rot. Adding a 'citation' that may soon cease working, with no real way to fix it, is a waste of your own time as well as anyone else's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

A bare url is no more likely to suffer from link rot than the same URL with extra formatting. Why would it be? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

It depends on type of URL. But a bare URL of the form meow.com/46733c is going to be a lot harder to resurrect than one where we know 46733c is an article written by Simba called Are Cats The Solution To Climate Change? published on the 13 October 2026. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's not archived you couldn't resurrect it, title or not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

No that's not correct. Websites regularly reorganise. Some content is still published in print. A decent publisher may have internal archives from which they might be willing to provide content of stuff they've published. Content is sometimes published elsewhere perhaps as a matter of course, perhaps occasionally. Authors might also be have their own copies of content they've written which they might be able to make available. Nil Einne (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

A proper citation - title, author, publisher, date etc, can be searched for, even if the URL no longer works. Bare URLs frequently tell you next to nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but the issue isn't "link rot", then, it is "discoverability". Whether the title is in the ref or not the chances of the link going defunct does not change. And I find this to be a weak argument when technically, per our citation guidelines, there is no specific piece of information we are mandated to have. When citing print papers was in vogue it was rather common to not cite the title, not cite the page, but simply the name of the source publication and the day. Technically those refs are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes the history of Wikipedia has been littered with terrible practices no longer considered acceptable or at least no longer considered good practice. Not sure what that has to do with anything. We used to allow unregistered editors to write articles on living persons and for these articles to be indexed by Google straight away with us doing absolutely nothing to discourage it too. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Is it "terrible practice" if there's nothing in our citation guidelines that forbids it whatsoever? We can't even get consensus to mandate templates in citations, or URLs. If it's so much of an issue there should be a consensus against it. Anyone who has looked at articles I've written know I love formatting references but most people don't care at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Links with additional details beyond just a bare URL are much, much, much easier to fix of they go dead. Bare urls are absolutely more likely to suffer link rot. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

"easier to find later" is not the same as "link rot". Link rot is the link going down. Us putting titles on our sources does not change the likelihood of some newspaper employee reshuffling every link on their website, or an old website closing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the wording, bare urls are worse than ones with additional details. Always. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

And start class articles are always worse than FA class articles. Wouldn't drag someone to ANI for writing a start class article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

First, contrary to your assertion, I do regularly use Refill to fill in citations. You can trivially confirm this from my edit history, where you will find literally hundreds of Refill edits. However, Refill/Toolforge is sadly quite often down, including as I type this.

Second, the reason I sometimes insert bare URLs is that I most often edit on mobile and in raw wiki markup, since I frequently edit transport and language pages with complex markup/templating that (in my experience) easily gets mangled by the WYSIWYG editor. Alas, raw mode does not support automatic pretty printing of citations, and manually typing them in a character at a time without a keyboard is quite painful indeed, hence my use of Refill afterwards.

Third, as you are well aware, per WP:BAREURL the Wikipedia consensus is that a bare URL is preferable to no URL, and it's bizarre that you think it's appropriate to waste ANI's time to complain about edits that the same essay describes as helpful. The "burden of cleanup" can, should be and in practice is already largely automated, and the odd bare URL left from my edits is invariably prettyprinted within weeks by a bot or script-powered editor churning through thousands of these. Asamboi (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

If you suggest someone takes something to ANI, please don't then say at ANI "it's bizarre that you think it's appropriate to waste ANI's time". The rest of the above explanation would have been a much more collegial initial reply than "Deal with it". For future reference, raw mode does support automatic addition of citation information (the automatic pretty printing of citations). When you click on the add citation template button, add the url into the url box and then hit the magnifying glass. This probably won't capture everything, but it'll get a couple of key bits of information in. CMD (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

So for avoidance of doubt, on mobile I use "source editing", which offers no controls whatsoever: https://imgur.com/a/jxHdZz8

Re: my suggestion of ANI, that was prefixed with If you really think there's no bigger problems on Wikipedia and thus facetious. I'll admit I should have known better than attempt sarcasm though, Wikipedia editors are a neurodivergent and humorless bunch so that rarely works. Asamboi (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Tap the pencil, change to Visual, tap the ref you added, tap convert, tap done. I do it all the time when editing on mobile. Takes just a few more seconds than just leaving it bare. Much less buggy than Refill. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Well congratulations this has moved me to propose Asamboi be warned for incivility. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Meh. I think he should be left alone. This all started from some user pestering him over a style issue for more than a year and refusing to let it go and walk away. I'd be fairly frustrated in his shoes. -- Veggies (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your substantive position but perhaps you could agree to be more responsive and polite in the future if anyone else raises this issue with you? --JBL (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

However, Refill/Toolforge is sadly quite often down, including as I type this.

for context, Toolforge is down because of PHP2Shell, so I think people should be cut some slack for having part of their workflow unexpectedly disappear Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Bare URLs are preferably to no URLs, infinitely so. Sometimes it takes a whole lot more than 5 seconds and many of our tools for making it faster do not work on mobile. Many of those tools also do not work on many common websites. I don't think there is an issue here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:CREEP. A reminder: an article entirely sourced to general references is still perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia WP:PAGs. We're around five steps away from requiring that inline citations be formatted with the correct citation template. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no real issue there - Bare URLs aren't great but I can't see it really being a problem meriting any sort of sanction - so OPPOSE any action. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Vivekkrishna Ramkumar - unsourced content

Vivekkrishna Ramkumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See user talk page. Years of ongoing unsourced content additions such as Special:Diff/1381300787 (and it appears potential edit warring to replace it when reverted) with no response to countless warnings. Thanks to no action they're EC and can edit protected articles. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 13:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

They've had eighteen warnings over the past two years and have only used a Talk page once, in June.

They were asked to use sources confirming that filming has begun on a project, they responded with Actually they have have announced the title. So that only I add the content what I have previously added to Rajnikanth, Kamal Haasan and Ashwath Marimuthu.

I can't see any other attempt to communicate with fellow editors. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

INDEF P-blocked from mainspace. Communication is not optional Star Mississippi 17:34, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Mugiwara no Reezy disruptive edits and uncommunicative

User Mugiwara no Reezy has been repeatedly edit warring and making other disruptive edits, while refusing to respond to communications on their Talk page or elsewhere. One particular issue is changing birth dates based on original research and removing cited sources. See here, here, and here. They just made a the same original research edit on Mary Linda after I repeatedly requested they stop edit warring and take it to the Talk page, and they've never responded to any of my messages. Thanks for your help. Bookworm-ce (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The user just responded to me in a further edit-warring edit description here, really unhelpful. They have already been told here by User:Jkaharper that TikTok is not a reliable source. I'm going to refrain from edit warring myself and just leave the article as is for now until admins can figure out what to do. Thanks, Bookworm-ce (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

It is rather concerning to have an editor repeatedly violating WP:SOCIALMEDIA while also claiming not to even speak English. This would imply extensive use of machine translation. May be a WP:CIR problem. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah they just reverted me again with an argument that my suggestion they should not be editing en.wp if they could not speak english was an attack on their ethnicity. Propose indef on CIR grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure it was reasonably possible to put it any more diplomatically than you did! Despite clearly trying to explain to this editor that it's not about ethnicity, but being able to speak the language that you're writing an encyclopedia in (crazy idea, huh!), the editor tried to be as accusatory and hostile as possible. Since not getting their way, Mugiwara's approach has been really uncollaborative. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mugiwara no Reezy I can see you're currently editing, can you please join the discussion and let us know your opinion of the issues raised in this report? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I’ve already replied and made it clear that I won’t continue with the edits on Mary Linda. I have already provided a link with some photos, her grave says she was born on 2 November and not 9 November. It wasn’t accepted, it’s ok. I wish you good luck with your work and because some people talk without having any idea, obviously my main occupation is with my native Wikipedia. I simply noticed that many articles in the English Wikipedia referring to people from my country were hella incomplete or incorrect and so I started making some corrections with dates and places of birth and death, that one doesn’t need to know perfect English to do it, I think. Nothing more, nothing less. I always try to cite sources that prove my edits. This is the first time this is happening and it was rejected like this, and going through a trial. I don't have anything else to say, thnx for the group attack and the trial for writing the truth, life goes on. Best of my wishes again!! Mugiwara no Reezy (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If Mugiwara is willing to accept that they need to adhere to WP:ENGAGE and WP:CIV going forward I'd be happy to withdraw my proposal. They seem to be engaging better since this was brought to AN/I and sometimes a warning is, in fact, enough. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, @Mugiwara no Reezy! I am sorry it had to reach this point. Do you feel like you understand the standards for citations on the wiki now, that you need to use secondary sources and not primary ones like gravestones/government ID databases/etc., and also not social media? Bookworm-ce (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Also noting that an anon user just made that same edit on Mary Linda, not sure what that's about. Bookworm-ce (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

For a quick note, I'm pretty sure generally things like birthdates are noncontroversial so a WP:ABOUTSELF socialmedia post is generally acceptable Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Jishara, fair point! Unfortunately it's not an ABOUTSELF, it's random people posting what they say are photos of her grave, which contains a different birth date than the obituaries that ran on her death and other sources that existed when she was alive. So it's possible that's right and all the obits are wrong, but so far no one has managed to provide anything actually citable to negate the obituaries. Bookworm-ce (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Ahhh yeah I agree with you there, random people aren't really a good source. Sorry, when you mentioned social media I assumed you meant like the person herself posting. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-49991-47

~2026-49991-47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Various flavors of disruption across numerous articles with no communication. Likely UPE. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 14:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat: Speaking as a passer-by unfamiliar with the context, I find it hard to see what the disruption is here, in the absence of specific examples that illustrate what you mean. I don't doubt that your suspicions may be valid, but some random spot-checking of the TA edits didn't reveal anything obvious to me and it's been a few days with no other response to this report, so I think you need to provide some specific evidence if you want an admin to be able to take action. R Prazeres (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Repeated unconstructive edit-spam by ~2026-44159-78

Extensive history of disruptive edits as shown by talk page, recently made a very large number of edits that somewhat broke parts of SpaceX Raptor along with deleting a large amount of sourced information. Reverting all of their edits would be extremely difficult without Rollback perms.

They also made extensive edits to SpaceX Starship and Starship HLS, which at first glance don't seem to have broken parts of the article but did delete a significant amount of sourced information. Additionally, under the guise of removing unreliable sources, they replaced so called unreliable sources with significantly worse ones.

Thus, these too should also be rolled back.

I originally went to AIV, but was told to take it here.

They have also recieved multiple final warnings, and have been reported to AIV before, where the admins directed them here as well. Unfortunently, they didn't follow through on that suggestion.

It should also be noted that they seem to be a single purpose editor, with every single one of the articles they've edited being related to Musk or a company he owns.

Redacted II (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to make things a bit easier for your readers, could you please provide diffs for the exact edits you're referring to? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Normally, I'd have included the diffs for their vandalism in the report. Sadly, due to sheer volume, it'd be... difficult.

They made thirty two edits to SpaceX Raptor in the span of two hours and three minutes, rwenty five in three hours and twenty six minutes to SpaceX Starship, and twenty four edits in twenty five minutes to Starship HLS. In fact, all of these edits were conducted over the three hour and twenty six minute span, which is a rate of one edit every three minutes. Not impossible, but suspicious.

Keep in mind that they've been warned about using AI for editing before.

At 22:07, they made three edits to SpaceX Raptor. 1, 2, and 3. One edit every twenty seconds. And a lot of them would require source editing. Doing that without the usage of AI slop seems... difficult.

I actually tested it via my sandbox, and, well, if you don't care about the content of the edit, you can edit an article at those speeds. But actually trying to improve an article? Probably impossible. And while I highly doubt that they were trying to improve the encyclopedia, they wrote edit descriptions for every single edit.

This also isn't a one-off. While AFAIK this was the only time they made three edits in a minute, there are plenty of times where they'd edit twice in the same minute. Redacted II (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah got it, thanks for the clarification! I've got work shortly so I'll probably need to leave this to others for now. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 04:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Appear to be AI edit summaries too. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks from 飞车过大关

飞车过大关 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today, 飞车过大关 responded to my reply to their vote opposing a proposal of mine on WT:V5 with this behemoth of a statement, calling my opinion "pure nonsense" and "full of self-righteous arrogance", accusing me of "launching...Western-centrist attacks" and "slandering [their] correct actions [of quota re-allocation proposals] in such a despicable way", and claiming that my "self-styled clear-headed remarks" demonstrate that my "prejudices are no different from those of Western-centrists". Are these not personal attacks?

I previously did ask them to stop "stop casting me as the enemy" in a response to a back-and-forth between me and them that also had borderline personal attacks, though not as severe. I thought that would be enough at the time, but I'm not so sure anymore. Lazman321 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

In my view its more of a WP:BATTLE and less WP:NPA case, but either way the hostility is apparent. We should wait for user to chime and explain what's going on, maybe there was an emotionally charged misunderstanding after all. Gigman (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

This comment is not very civil, but Lazman321 had said they had "no right to speak against a quota crisis", and that could be taken as a move to resrict their viewpoint. I really hope someone doesn't get blocked from this discussion. Both of these people have been very helpful in working to improve the vital articles lists, and sometimes there's a huge gap between what different people find important, and one may think the other is totally wrong. Windwardcoast (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a major part of why I've mostly stepped away from the Vital Articles project. There's always been a bit of an issue over there with participants taking a BATTLEGROUND mentality. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 02:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Same. I've tried focusing on other areas. Between no one outside the project wanting to use the list for much of anything, and some of the comments I've had directed at me in discussion, I've tried to limit my attention there a bit. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I very much welcome this opinion. It fully demonstrates that Western-centrists have already carried out a shameful deprivation of my freedom, just as certain people on the Chinese Internet have done to me. I would be glad to see myself become the first user to be blocked by Western-centrists—through means that look civilized but are in fact dirty factional tactics—simply for criticizing Western-centrists and inclusionists. I have no objection to this, and I do not want to explain anything. Since some people think I have engaged in personal attacks, then I should indeed be indefinitely blocked, because certain Western-centrists want me to shut up. They want to erase my freedom of speech and suppress every proposal opposing Western-centrism; they are bound to succeed. This is the Wikipedia of English speakers, and they will inevitably use such a method to achieve their victory. I am proud to see that I will become a martyr against Western-centrism. I myself can no longer stand certain users’ domineering and stubborn views regarding the VA list. If you want to fully enumerate my charges, I can provide them: the vast majority of users on the VA list are my enemies. From my first day on Wikipedia, people have demanded that my right to speak be stripped because my identity was unclear; later, even after I had more than ten thousand edits, there were still people trying to silence anti-Western-centrists. I think my being blocked is entirely natural, because using my own speech to deprive me of freedom is, in terms of procedural legitimacy, something opposition groups all over the world like to do. I have seen it many times, and I do not care. 飞车过大关 (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Given that dissent is restricted, I suppose there is no need for me to explain that I am civil and well-intentioned. Certain people have wanted to silence me by every possible means from the very beginning. Now I must satisfy certain people’s demands and say the things certain people want me to say, so that the management can block me without any burden and with ample justification, and so that certain people can get what they want. I think this is the greatest kindness I can show certain people, because certain people constantly long for me to stop posting negative opinions. And if I do post such remarks, the Wikipedia management will basically tell me to shut up, and I will then be able to help certain people achieve the goal they desire most. Just as Venezuelan President Maduro expected of Trump—that Trump would bring the U.S. military to arrest him—Trump indeed arrested the dictator Maduro, and both sides got what they wanted on different levels.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Many users have also had conflicts of opinion with me—users such as @Ipedecha:, @Q.Khải:, and @Bluevestman: can all testify that my behavior should make me a priority for blocking. I fully admit that I should be blocked. As a Chinese person, do I care about Wikipedia’s blocking medal? Even Larry Sanger has been blocked, and those Chinese nationalist users in 2021 were also blocked. Several users I know who made outstanding contributions on my native-language Wikipedia were also blocked because certain people seized on their critical remarks as a pretext. I am honored to join their ranks. I think this proposal is the one with the most consensus, because the proposer believes I must be punished, and I also believe I must be punished. Given that this consensus is clear, the fact that I should be blocked is something that should be universally recognized.飞车过大关 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, there’s no need to explain too much. I can directly give the reasons Wikipedia blocked me: first, violating the Assume Good Faith policy; second, seriously violating the policy that Wikipedia is not a battleground; and third, when reported for violating policies, I still did not reflect on my mistakes and instead proactively provoked some Wikipedia users. These three points alone are enough to block me for at least one month or indefinitely (depending on how harmful you perceive me to be), and these blocking reasons are entirely consistent with Wikipedia’s internal policy logic. I earnestly request that Wikipedia administrators with the relevant permissions block me based on such obvious statements. 飞车过大关 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

That's... a lot of martyrdom, congratulations; the stained-glass window is in the works. Would you, in the meantime, care to address why you feel it necessary to write such extensive attack screeds in discussions rather than keep things productive and collegial? Based on the above, you seem more bent on gloriously dying for a cause than actually getting the editorial disagreement resolved. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If you think my comments are purely an “attack screed” with no substantive points, that only shows you have ignored that their main content is a large number of specific concerns about Western-centrism and quota re-allocation in the VA list, rather than concrete personal accusations. And from your righteous remarks, it is also obvious that some senior users who are keen on participating in the community are not always willing to spend their precious energy carefully investigating the page history, so that they ignore the context of the discussion and the large amount of relevant editorial content such as votes and proposals. Collegiality cannot mean that I alone must withdraw my objections while also accepting others’ unfriendliness and unreasonable obstructive opinions toward me. Of course, given that this is English Wikipedia and not some other website, I may have to accept the fact that others criticizing me is entirely correct, while my criticizing others is obviously obstruction and disruption. If I had not participated, there would not be so much trouble on the Level 5 list talk page, so my participation is inherently wrong, just as certain people believe. Of course, I still suggest you hurry up and call an administrator to take blocking action against me, because my remarks have obviously not changed under your warning—this is resistance to cooperation and resistance to the community, and in any community composed of multiple people, there is inevitably only one solution for such resisters: they must be eliminated. Therefore, for me, the most effective approach would be for you to stop your unconstructive, problem-solving-averse replies and instead give a reply that is affirmatively free of negative emotional coloring and can actually solve the problem—for example, pinging an administrator to block me immediately in order to stop my “voting disruption” of the Level 5 list.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I am very grateful that you gave me an appropriate wp and offered constructive criticism :). Your vivid wp, together with the earlier warning and some memories of past interactions with others, suddenly made everything clear to me. I think that if I could, just as this wp awakened me, grasp the truly pertinent core issue and explain it concretely and clearly—instead of, because of my own mental problems, making overly broad, evasive, and unintelligible offensive remarks—things would not have turned out like this. I admit that some of my past remarks offended most users in the Level 5 discussion and ignored what the English Wikipedia is really about, but I still believe that the administrators’ quick block of me was very necessary and entirely uncontroversial. I still long to be blocked quickly: for a desperate death-row inmate, a quick lethal injection is more comfortable than the torture of waiting for execution. A quick block would not only help Wikipedia achieve its justice but also help me calm my mind. As the saying goes, a block can make one calm down and reflect on one’s mistakes; it can also help other users see just how bad I am and help them more effectively avoid any negative impact I might cause. However, I am curious why the English Wikipedia’s administrators are not inclined to block, within a short time, an obvious deliberate rule-offending non-cooperator; such enforcement seems somewhat inefficient. 飞车过大关 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think they'd rather have editors editing instead of being blocked. Sometimes all an editor needs is to step back, take a breath, and reset their behaviour. You can always ask for a short self requested block of you need it, there's a list of admins you can ask. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I do think that he goes overboard, especially in this recent times, but he doesnt do out of malice. It just the way he espress himself, i do think he should get a warning or a suspencion, but i do not think he should be banned. Discussion are common on that project and he is not vandal or anything like that. Its a hard thing to say considering my argumment isnt based on politics(i think) and uses a lot of good faith and he is in this very moment asking to be banned with much prose, but as someone who has interacted with him a lot i do not see him as bad person at all. Ipedecha (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree, @飞车过大关 seems too emotional now. Let's give them a chance to take a step back and take a deep breath. Gigman (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: In the time I've been editing WP:VA, I've noted some increasingly aggressive behavior from 飞车过大关 that should probably be addressed here. On numerous occasions I've seen him copy and pasting a block of text on bulk proposals like @User:Bluevestman's like food proposals; while the mass proposal was a bit annoying do to the lag it causing in the talk page's loading, copy and pasting the same paragraph over and over does not help nor is it really acknowledged as they were often of a bit bigoted imo. There's also the recent matter of the mass opposition of article removals in which he stated "won't support any cleanup effort, because any freed-up slots would only be used to add new biographies", which seems to potentially be out of paranoia. IMO, I don't believe he should be perma banned, but I do believe he probably need a temporary topic suspension to calm he nerves and mind a bit; as seen in his above responses as well as statements I made like "to 70 such articles in less than a year—is purely manufactured anxiety," he probably just needs some time away from VA. From what I can personally tell, like what Ipedeca I don't think he's deliberately attempting to omit malice, I don't believe he's a vandal, I'm pretty sure he's recent "overboard"-ness is likely due to stress. If y'all think think my logic is erroneous, please correct me, but I'm just trying to give my take on the situation. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

It's true that Bluevestman continues to propose huge numbers of additions to sections that already passed or are near their quota. His proposals seem random, as far as I can tell, like making 20 proposals so far to add food items with several items in each, and similarly for a bunch of buildings, structures, and World Heritage Sites. I find this annoying because it doesn't seem like he's even considering quotas or prioritizing certain items over others, which is the whole point of vital articles. Windwardcoast (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I wish to state clearly that I am averse to others quoting me out of context and over-speculating about my motives—especially when someone quotes only part of what I said while intentionally or unintentionally concealing the premises of my statement, just as in the case of a user who, using only a few isolated fragments, immediately demanded that I be deprived of my voting rights. For example, some users deliberately ignored that I mentioned that the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 5#Move 100 slots from people to Society and social sciences was facing failure, and took only the latter half of my statement—that quotas cannot be adjusted systematically, rendering cleanup work meaningless, and that people would continue adding articles on the same topic based on remaining quota—to claim that I personally oppose all cleanup work and to treat any opposing vote I cast as grounds for temporarily suspending my speaking rights. Of course, some users here have assessed my views out of context without having reviewed even half of my edits, and there are many such instances; I am confident that the vast majority of the assertions made about me here do not correspond at all to the facts as I understand them.

If there are any users who might influence me, they would be users who oppose adjusting quotas, users who oppose cleaning up secondary articles, and a certain user who publicly accused me of creating a crisis by reducing the people quota while ignoring that I was alleviating the quota crisis for more important topics. Given the trend of the discussion here, I somewhat suspect that ordinary criticism of my civility has escalated into questioning the legitimacy of my opposing views, and even into irrelevant challenges to a certain user’s bulk proposals. Unless such additional challenges and unreasonable private speculation are accompanied by an explanation of the relevant Wikipedia policy or the full context, such suggestions are not constructive and instead divert attention from the core issue. The conflict itself does not lie with any particular user, but rather in the opposition between me and those who sought to report me, or those demanding that my speaking rights be suspended, or those who have publicly condemned my several systematic quota adjustments. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Literally, none of us have called for a suspension of your so-called "voting rights" or "speaking rights". At most, we have asked you to take a break to calm down. Hell, some of us are even defending you, saying that your actions don't seem to be driven by malice and that you shouldn't be banned. Lazman321 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: One ongoing criticism I have of 飞车过大关 is his lack of directness. Instead of @ing users with whom he has issues, he often mentions "some users", "certain users", "a user who...", etc. in statements where he is addressing no one, someone else, or even the user in question. These semi-vague, aggressive, but nonconfrontational comments often come off as unconstructive and leave room for plausible deniability.

Based on his stance on authoritarianism and his background, it's easy to understand why he is paranoid about having his rights deprived and his free speech limited by some imaginary ideologically adversary group, and I can very much empathize with that. However, to be frank with you 飞车过大关, that is simply not the case. No one is trying to silence you for your opinions. In fact, many users who agree with you 80% of the time such as Ipedecha, ARoseThorn, Thi, and myself, have not faced any difficulties voicing their opinions. It's a genuine question of your civility and you should use this space to address it and only it, and then we then discuss Western bias and quota allocations at the relevant talk pages.

Personally, all of this quarrel is still in good faith, and there's no reason for drastic measures such as banning. KhaiDo (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm relatively new to the project, having watched it for a time and only having participated full bore in the discussions the past couple weeks. I'm not too familiar with ANI procedure, but I think that a temp topic ban would be orderly here. I actually thought of making a report on Lazman's behalf as the tenor of 飞车过大关's replies just seemed a full step over the line. It's true that they participate a lot and they are pretty intolerant of some of the cruftier entries, which can help things move along. It's not nothing by any stretch and their commitment (time alone) is genuinely admirable, but they also seem disinterested in being civil or following a good faith voting process. Just today, in a proposal I made to remove a less than consequential (imo) American entry (which is one of the general aims of the project these days and which 飞车过大关 generally supports), they commented Unless you can successfully delete less important people like Edith Wilson or Kim Yo Jong, any further removal of U.S. presidents is completely meaningless—utterly pointless.. Nevermind that I never participated in a !vote on either of those two people. It is point-making that characterizes a lot of their responses and seems intended to warp discussion toward their preferred outcome (examples: Until my proposal to cut miscellaneous people biographies at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level 5#Move 100 slots from people to Society and social sciences is accepted rather than opposed, I won't support any cleanup effort from , Such removal-type proposals are completely meaningless except insofar as they make it easier to endorse a certain user's proposal to nominate a large number of specific dishes for addition from , The writer quota for the Level 5 list is quite limited, and some users have even demanded the removal of the most important poets from China—a millennia-old civilization. So why should I bother to retain a modern Brazilian poet? from .
Beyond WP:POINT,飞车过大关 easily slips into uncivil behavior without appreciation for its consequences. WP:BITE is chief among these consequences that concern me, especially for a backlogged project with minimal (and waning?) participation. It already tends a bit too much toward debate society and WP:BATTLEGROUND, it doesn't help to accuse, assume, and dismiss others. As a newcomer to the project, after disagree with on a procedural issue (and some peripheral substance on which we disagree), I receive long paragraphs with the sentiment Why should I persuade you? I would rather fail than believe your opinion is not full of Western-centric bias. (from and then am simultaneously hounded on a couple other proposals, dismissing the views as absurd and steeped in an arrogant Western bias (). If I hadn't resolved to be involved in the project, being accused and given no good faith from one of the major participants would have been a great disincentive from continuing. I mentioned WP:CIVIL to them at the time and they just claimed I was trying to shut them up. Besides that episode, 飞车过大关 consistently dismisses other views as absurd (, , ) or crazy and doesn't seem to approach a lot of proposals with a consensus-seeking or good-faith-assuming approach, as much as a desire to pillory views 飞车过大关 considers incorrect. As a side note, amidst 飞车过大关's accusations of bias, they also exhibit a strong reluctance toward female inclusions and a distaste for LGBTQ inclusions, featuring the pointed misgendering of Marsha P. Johnson, maintained after being corrected . Like I told them, I agree with their view on exclusion/inclusion on a solid majority of proposals. There are others I certainly disagree with more. But 飞车过大关's behavior in particular is not suited to WP:CIVIL and has persisted for months in that way. [[[[[Side Note: I made most of this comment before most recent replies]]]] Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how relevant this is, but GuzzyG's comments here came to mind regarding 飞车过大关's stance on gender. KhaiDo (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure why, but I'm noticing a lot of people I have interacted with (both IRL and on Wiki) that speak Chinese as a first language use the word "absurd" a lot in written text. I am beginning to suspect that it might be something to do with the way translation software is choosing words, but don't know enough Chinese to begin to know if it is true. It could also be coincidence, or a word emphasized in English language classes. I've started to associate the word "Absurd" with Chinese language speakers, as absurd as that is (not that they are being absurd, but they are the only people I see using it regularly). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• It’s my view that the editor’s general tone and the repeated use of “absurd” is plainly uncivil per WP:5P4, and nowhere close to what I’d term collaborative. Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  Per my comment, I suspect that the term might be an artifact of translation rather then malice, although I'm not sure. I have been looking into it a bit in the short time since I made my comment, and believe that "absurd" might be a literal translation when trying to say "unreasonable," "illogical," or "That doesn't make sense." Again, my Chinese is extremely limited, but it might be an example of one-to-one translation. For example, I've gotten both "荒诞" and "荒谬" to translate to "absurd" in Google Translate. I'm not sure if there are different implications between the two in Chinese, or if there are other examples. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  I admit this observation is reasonable—even quite applicable to Chinese users of English. English education in China links words that are similar in meaning but not in register—for example, the English word absurd and the Chinese word “荒谬”. However, the Chinese “荒谬” means quite unreasonable, quite wrong, or illogical. 飞车过大关 (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

As for whether my views amount to discrimination against LGBT people and transgender women’s rights, I do not want to make a definitive judgment. But I would very much like to cite my comment on bias; I think this comment shows that my views are full of extremely wrong biases that do not conform to universal values:There is a phenomenon on talk pages: when some users see oppose votes on proposals about Western pop music, they treat it as obstruction of legitimate additions and as hateful conservative bias. But when eel—a fish food beloved in Japan and also popular in China—is removed, they see nothing wrong with it and even support the removal. Why? Because removing eel is not bias; it is the correct product of moving away from anti-Western bias. Perhaps, for the whole world, a 21st-century pop song matters more than a food with a thousand years of culture that over a billion people love to eat. This is not bias at all, because Westerners can live without eating eel, while many non-Westerners have never encountered a pop music work that no art history encyclopedia would ever emphasize—yet it supposedly has global-level importance, and treating pop music as unimportant is considered a dangerous, hateful bias that harms the making of a good list. But removing eel is different: East Asians’ everyday life can be ignored as a higher priority than LGBT groups or women. Why should what matters to them be emphasized on an English-language website? Identity politics must not be ignored, but older people, poor people, citizens of non-Western countries, and citizens of developing countries can simply be ignored under the new consensus. This is precisely the voting practice, on specific proposals, of users who insist that the Level 5 list should guard against anti-entertainment bias and anti-anti-Western bias. I know many people think I should shut up, that I am being disruptive and causing trouble, that I should do nothing and let the “correct consensus” proceed smoothly with their cooperation. But I simply cannot stand the very strange voting phenomenon. Even if my account is indefinitely blocked, this phenomenon absolutely must be overcome. I know many people think I should shut up—that I am being disruptive and causing trouble, that I should do nothing and let the “correct consensus” proceed smoothly through their cooperation. But I simply cannot stand the very strange voting phenomenon. Even if my account is indefinitely blocked, and even if certain people elsewhere denounce me as a far-right extremist who is anti-LGBT and anti-feminist (even though I am nothing of the sort), I will still post this opinion.飞车过大关 (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I dont think you should be commenting on, or closing proposals, on the vital articles talk page while this ANI is open. Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

As someone active at vital articles, I fully support a block. This user frequently makes personal attacks and assumes my and many others' motivations. You have called me an irish user with ultierior motives when i asked for clarification on someones comment, and compared Irish people to the british when you disagreed with my take on a proposal. I refuse to believe you wouldve chosen to compare the irish people to british if it was anyone else. Because of the recent homophobic comment, which is the comment right before this one, I request that people look at the comments by 飞车过大关 under this proposal where he says LGBT is "Western-style progressive liberal ideology" and says "I have no desire to be pressed into unpacking a political ideology I'd rather not elaborate on" when I ask for clarification. Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I fully support your supplementary opinion. I am a far-right reactionary; I have been disrupting and vandalizing the talk page through my words and actions; during the review period I participated in VA list voting without authorization; I have provoked the Wikipedia community; and despite others’ warnings I have continued to post insulting and hateful remarks. I should be blocked. I had intended to contact an administrator myself to do this, but I feel that, seeing the public outrage condemning my offenses, their efforts should not be let down, and their supplementary opinions should be heard and adopted. I therefore request that administrators quickly pay attention to this page and block me promptly; these offensive texts, one after another, are precisely the factual evidence of my deliberate offenses. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, didn’t you want to know what ideology I meant? I can tell you: it’s just this word—Baizuo. Although the term Baizuo is used by people of different ideologies in China, it is indeed a far-right term, so your view is completely correct, and I fully accept being blocked by Wikipedia. As a Chinese nationalist, I am excited to see myself subjected to a block or ban—from the most basic interaction ban to the longest indefinite block—for this is an honor to me. I am happy to have been criticized to pieces by the Western bourgeois left. I always used to think China’s propaganda and public opinion were wrong, extreme, narrow-minded anti-intellectual and far-right thinking; now I realize how brilliant Chinese wisdom is, how vile the white left is, how hypocritical Westerners are, and how much opponents love to take language out of context. I can hardly wait to become the first blocked VA discussant. I believe my block will surely help Western-centrists toward victory, and this also fulfills my old wish from when I still worshipped Western civilization—that Chinese nationalists deserved to be taught a lesson by Westerners. Now that I have become this nationalist, I am even happier. 飞车过大关 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think 飞车过大关 is making clear they are constitutionally unable to WP:Dropthestick. Besides the long responses here, they've also made long comments at the VA project with thinly veiled accusations and general animosity toward the concept of a civil consensus-seeking process with the assumption of good faith. I note also that it seems they created this account about a year ago for VA and then accumulated ~11k edits almost exclusively in the project.Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

They may have more accounts Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• Okay, could an admin please fulfill 飞车过大关's wet dream, and spare us further misery? Anyone capable of indulging in suicidal grandstanding at this volume and length cannot ever be trusted around articles (let alone vital ones). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  I understand the meaning, but could you please refrain from using suicide as a simile? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  WP:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man plus evidence of prior behavior = Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  Based on their conduct, as others have already demonstrated, this is probably what's best. What do we do about 飞车过大关's votes in proposals that are still active? Should we keep them as is or should we strike them? Lazman321 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  strike all Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  How do we best inform WP:VITAL editors about this? A major editor there just got blocked Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  Eh striking all seems dilatory. They were indeffed for civility, not that they were coi or AI or anything. I think we should move this over to VA and can ping anybody so desired there to develop a consensus on striking or no. Unless there is some procedure I don't know. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  I would oppose striking in general. I wouldn't object to striking in certain cases where the vote is explicitly obstructionist rather than merits based.

  Part of the problem is VA's adoption of a vote-based rather than a policy-based !voting process like AfD. Jahaza (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  They are clearly biased against lgbt and women Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  I started a discussion at WT:VA#飞车过大关 has been blocked indefinitely. Lazman321 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

User:CassandraFassi persistent unsourced edits and other problems

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

This editor has received many warnings from many editors (most recently myself, Asqueladd, and Lankdadank) about non-constructive editing, including unsourced changes and what look like personal POV edits about ethnicity and geography (see their user talk page).

They were already blocked temporarily on 12 September for disruptive editing. After the block expired, they resumed the same type of disruptive edits, as I explained here before I made a final effort to try and divert them towards more constructive editing (). After that, they received yet another warning from Asqueladd (), presumably for unsourced and/or POV edits like this, this, etc.

Their newest edits this week once again contain similar problems. This edit deleted cited content, then added a dubious tangent about other ethnicities, which they incorrectly attributed to the citation that supported the deleted content. (I also note the MOS:CURLY apostrophes, which indicates copy-pasting from somewhere else and makes me worry that they are continuing to use AI tools, despite earlier warnings: , .) Additionally, this mass edit manages to add uncited details (see the first addition in the diff), and more unsourced changes are present in this and this.

I believe they have good intentions, but they've received a lot of warnings and a lot of patience so far, and these latest edits make me think they're just going to keep repeating the same problems for the foreseeable future. R Prazeres (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

At a glance, the Black Guard citation looks strange to me, plus it seems to have been published in 2013, not 2012? There's no page number either and a random single word at the end of the sentence. It feels a bit like it's been cut and pasted from elsewhere without any prior review.

The lengthy, overly detailed edit summaries definitely make me concerned that they're using AI. It's possible that a human wrote them, but it would be pretty unusual. They feel more like an LLM confirming the actions it's taken after following a prompt. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

They don't seem like AI edit summaries to me, they deviate from the template and editorialize too much for that, and none of the common 2026 tics are really showing up en masse

have not looked at the edits themselves Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you're the expert so I'll trust your judgement on that! I'm still trying to familiarise myself with the latest LLM developments after being away for a couple of months. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. To be clear: I'm reporting them here because of their general violations of core content policies, not for the potential LLM usage. Indeed, I don't think their edit summaries are LLM-generated, but it might be an incidental factor in their content edits. R Prazeres (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

LLM-supported or not, my experience about the problems with such user stems from changes to the wording of the articles, as if it were a sort of copy-editing exercise, but with objectives that were not initially stated yet are quite clear (removing the African framework in favour of the Maghreb framework as if the validity of Africa as a geographic concept was into question when it comes to Moroccan issues), and other, more specific changes which introduce absurdities that fall outside the bounds of normal historiography (which the user then apparently defends using anti-Eurocentric fallacies). Some of these include encompassing the territory of "northern Morocco" within "Al-Andalus" in the context of the Kharijite revolt , or perhaps a good-faith inaccuracy mistaking the expulsion of the Moriscos (nominally forced converts with various degrees of assimilation) with outright "Muslims" . As most of these changes are included in mass edits changing the whole wording of the article (within other edits that are perhaps inane in terms of modifying the meaning of the preexisting text too much), they are difficult to evaluate in the absence of honest edit summaries. Given that most of their edits are lacking in any sort of sourcing, the net contribution of the user in question to the project should be assessed in terms of these problematic insertions in the form of POV-driven crusades, and whether their editorial changes concerning only the language actually improve the readability (I am not the best person to assess the latter), in addition to behavioural issues, including the reluctance to address the concerns raised to them.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is very much the type of thing they've been doing and it often creates a mess that cannot be easily fixed without wholesale reverts. They have not edited or responded since this report was filed, so I've invited them a second time to respond (). R Prazeres (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Insulted and threatened by editor

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

I failed the GAN of 2017 Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting due to the nominator refusing to hear my advice and being rude. The nominator, Plantcoal, then replied with this very vulgar response when the bot said it failed . I usually wouldn't bring this kind of stuff to ANI, but this is unacceptable. Not any way to treat ANYONE on Wikipedia. Carnival of Lights (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I've given them a warning and removed the comment FWIW. I sincerely hope they've logged off to calm down. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Carnival of Lights FYI The comments have been fully deleted from the history and editor warned by an admin. They've been told that any further misbehaviour will result in a block. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 07:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Nazism and antisemitism from User:Saucegoblin

I was looking through the userboxes when I noticed an nazi userbox created by Saucegoblin (talk · contribs) and put it up at MfD. But I reread NONAZIS a minute or so ago and this is clearly a violation of NONAZIS by Saucegoblin. For reference, the userbox in question: . To give them credit, they did change it a bit after I put it up at MfD, but the new one isn't that much better. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 03:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah disgusting userbox. Saucegoblin, please describe what the thought process here is and if you identify as a fascist or nazi. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I feel like DUCK applies here. They had both of versions of the userboxes on their userpage, after all. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 04:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I speedily deleted the userbox. Someone else can decide on the rest EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, I removed this nazi userbox for his userpage VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're seeing this after the userbox was deleted, the original userbox was an image of Mussolini with the caption "the trains were on time". The second version was the same image with the caption "this user is a fascist". ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 04:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I remember that there's a banned user for creating an similar userboxes like this, but I don't remeber his username... This is an BIGGEST shame. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman I agree with you, fuck nazis VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555 Whilst I don't think anyone would disagree with the sentiment, this isn't really a helpful addition to the discussion. nil ^nz 04:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Nah. It's always helpful o say "fuck Nazis". Those scumbags have surrendered any right to courtesy, decency, or continuing participation in society. oknazevad (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I second this point. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Any other thing we want to do now, since the userbox has been deleted? Anything with the user? ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:37, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

They're in violation of HID (so they can be blocked for disruptive editing) and NONAZIS (so they can be blocked for BLOCKNAZIS). I'd advocate a block here, but given their record with userboxes I highly doubt that they will edit their talkpage constructively if blocked. With that in mind, I'd argue a ban is the best option here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 05:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support ban This is also a case of NOTHERE. This editor has made virtually no contributions in mainspace in a year. Their main contribution has been political infoboxes. Plenty of editors have been banned for the same behaviour. There was a remarkably similar case earlier this year. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Support ban. oknazevad (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Support siteban, per WP:NONAZIS. Beta Beta Beta - talk 08:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Some of the user boxes that remain also suggest the editor is here just to promote far-right views. Ex: And One is a German band with a history of hophobic and german-nationalist lyrics. This editor may only have made unpleasant infoboxes but I can't imagine their mainspace edits won't end up stirring various pots. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  And one of their very few mainspace edits appears to be vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like there's a cluster of TAs obsessed with adding that line to that article as well. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Indeffed for LOUTSOCKing/block evasion, trolling, vandalism, disruptive editing, and the whole shebang. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Support ban forever per above, so we can rid us for this user. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 16:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Blatantly violating the WP:No Nazis policy should be treated with an instant block from Wikipedias, the WikiMedia, and the Reichstag alike. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

... Should we make No Nazis essay an actual policy? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:11, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

That's probably something that needs to be discussed elsewhere. ⚙ Crash >> Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 17:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

User:XiaoFui

Suspected of Waxworker when revert the edits of IP user's other years of Philippine television articles

Please ban ~2026-52637-37

Continued overlinking by Dark X 22 after three warnings

They have been warned three times , they will say (paraphrasing) "thank you, I will comply" and then just carry on as before. Not every single edit is an unambiguous overlink, but I'd estimate about 2/3 are. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Blocked from article space until they demonstrate that they understand the WP:PAG well enough to edit directly. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by @Roxana62

S/He is continuously disrupting the edits in Wikipedia about each of the regulators of the List of regulators in India, such as Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India and others. I have already given the exact reason in the Talk:Reserve Bank of India about the issue, but still, I am tired to make the user understand about the solution of the usage of State Emblem of India. Please also check this @~2026-56290-98 user also, it might be a sockpuppet also. Even the constructive edits like writing the regulatory agency as more precisely regulatory agency I have made for which people can know about other regulators in India through this interlink, he/she deleted it. Please resolve this issue and Thank you. Career Counsellor 2210 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

He is also booked here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxana62 reported by User:IrisChronomia (Result: ) Career Counsellor 2210 (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, and if they carry on like that they can expect an indef before too long. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I do fear, he will comeback with another id, please keep an eye... Have a nice day. Career Counsellor 2210 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Just ping me if they do. I'll be watching. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:01, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing by Gzavala6

Between July and September, Gzavala6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of incorrect changes to production credits in several music articles, without ever providing edit summaries (). Since September, Gzavala6 has been persistently making unconstructive and unexplained edits to articles of musicians (particularly Damiano David), such as incorrectly replacing the birth_place infobox parameter with origin () and adding the birth_name parameter when the birth name is the same as the article's name (). Aside from a couple of feeble responses in their talk page (), Gzavala6 has made no other attempts to communicate with others despite warnings from me and other users, and has so far failed to provide a valid explanation for their behavior. snapsnap ^(talk) 17:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Yikes! Their user talk page tells the whole story: they've had warnings, a block, final warnings by admins, etc. Blocked from mainspace and invited to discuss here some more. They have some useful info to contribute, but are not listening to others regarding the appropriateness of their actions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm 100% in favor of an indef block. The only reason I've held off so far is just that I could technically be seen as INVOLVED since I've reverted them a few times, as they've continually been altering music credits to be incorrect. But their talk page speaks for itself - a variety of warnings and requests to stop, with minimal responses and none of them inspiring any hope that they understand the problem or will change. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Racially motivated comments by User:Hjalpingers

Hjalpingers (talk · contribs) has recently been seen in a discussion leaving racially motivated comments towards Asian people, and said hatred has been fueling his responses in discussions.

The primary comment that shows this reads as - "The Asians like always ruin everything (i don't mean it like politically)" -

I am requesting a ban for this user as racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. WikiSal (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

While I have no comment on a ban as of now I invite administrators to read through some of the arguments ongoing at that page; the incivility issues run far deeper than just this report and I don't know what to make of it. Eoline 19:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it too, looked at what he posted on pages, this is bad. ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what the protocol is here, but I definitely support administrator intervention. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: Turns out he seems to be threatening other editors in similar discussions on the same page WikiSal (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's a Diff that I found particularly disturbing. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This is horrible. The user should be indefed without any delay. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:20, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Figured it would be good to link this Diff as well, he says he hopes another editor dies "sarcastically". Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

How were they allowed to abuse WP:FORUM extensively in that talk page? Borgenland (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure but there’s more than one user involved; this has been an issue at WP:WPWX for a few years. Even then I’ve never observed racism at the project to the blatant extent that was said here; I would support indefs where necessary. Eoline 01:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I also support indef here, this is horrible. TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The whole situation surrounding this goes deep and needs context. This discussion is across both Talk:List of European tornadoes in 2026 and Talk:List of Asian tornadoes in 2026. The primary controversy is over what determines the border between the European and Asian continents. I'm not gonna name names, but if you read literally anything on the latter article and anything following the closed discussion on the former article, you can tell that the conversation is not the most civil one there's been. I've very briefly chimed in on the conversation and tried to cool it down, even started an RfC to try to get literally anybody else's opinion on the matter, but the conversation remains heated and is such a headache to be a part of. I am almost positive the hostility stems from some sort of conflict of interest, the main talking point is of an IF4-rated tornado in Turkey, and is has been a warzone over what article gets to lay claim to it if you get what I'm saying. The discussion has reached completely ridiculous levels of hostility, and even as someone who is very active in the tornado side of Wikipedia I do not want to touch it with a ten foot pole   tetradisulfate  01:46, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It's very weird. Looks like a triumvirate of Hjalpingers, StormL00ver, and Loaf5979, using article talk pages as forums, favouring the ESWD, and occasionally being hateful? I'll take a deeper look tomorrow if it hasn't been handled by then. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 02:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I never broke WP:Cıvıl and I warned people who broke them what are you talking about? ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 03:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know, you haven't broken WP:CIVIL yes, but (like what I brought up below, you and the other two repeatedly went against the consensus formed. GrenadinesDes (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@GrenadinesDes You know that I didn't do that to cause vandalizm? Also I never claimed I did the correct thing. I should have opened a consesus before doing that edit. I will try to never do that again. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 13:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Digging further, it seems like this case isn't the first time you've repeatedly redid an edit that didn't fit your personal preference and got warned against doing it. GrenadinesDes (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@GrenadinesDes It was when I first created my acount and I was very inexperienced in editing. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

While that's true, it shows that you've been warned against doing that kind of stuff early on, but you continue to do it either way GrenadinesDes (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't truly understand what I did back then. I changed a lot during a few months. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 14:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You recently told me to "chill out" and defended Hjalpingers' rather disturbing comment, which I linked in a Diff above, and you even pasted the definition of "humor" in the discussion and said some editors 'don't get humor', which I found rather rude, as shown in Diff 1, Diff 2, and Diff 3. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbulb Noob First, I didn't defend making that kind of joke infact I find it childish or unmature but rather I tried to tell you that he wasn't being serious and Also I warned him multiple Times about WP:CIVIL but he didn't listened and look where is he now. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You still said other editors "don't get humor" and you still pasted the entire definition of humor in one of your replies to me. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Also after that discussion I thought that he learned his lesson and he would never do it again rather than making a racist comment that got him banned. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@GrenadinesDes Also if you didn't know already I am not a native speaker of the English language and this is one of the reasons why grammar in my article's are usually bad. Tho I can understand English greatly now that wasnt the case a few months ago. Also I didn't knew about any wiki rules when I first started editing. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Also I wasnt hatefull I didn't even wrote anything that was targeted to someone. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 03:41, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

My comment was never intended to be hateful bu5 I understand it can look that way. Loaf5979 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

First I'd remind everyone involved that weather events are still a community designated CTOP Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Weather events. Next I suggest Loaf5979 and Hjalpingers take this as a final warning. If we see any repeats of anything like this again, we should indefinite whether CBAN or an admin simply blockssimply an admin indefinite block. Even AGF that their comments were really only intended to refer to the creation of the Asian tornado article rather than a comment about Asian people, there's no way either of them didn't realise how their comment would come across. Indeed the comment by Hjalpingers "(i don't mean it like politically)" shows they at least clearly did know. Perhaps such lame racist jokes are fine with whoever they normally hang out with, but they're not fine here and are disruptive. So repetition of such jokes should lead to an indefinite with little chance of them being allowed back except with a 6 months SO at an absolute minimum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC) 09:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The blatant WP:OWN going on is almost as concerning in a different way, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd point out that Hjalpingers claims to be 16 years old on their userpage, which doesn't surprise me, however the behaviour on those talkpages is severely sub-optimal and a final warning if not something more stringent may be applicable here. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Nah, I feel like this shouldn't be another warning. Those two, ESPECIALLY Hjalpingers, have been warn repeatedly about being unCIVIL. The things Hjal did here isn't fully everything. He's also has deleted entire discussion out of frustration Deleted the comment of someone within that same discussion The wishing death on me (sarcastically), which Lightbulb Noob is already linked to that diff above. Loaf, Stormlover, and Hjalpingers also at one point went back against the consensus form from Talk:List of European tornadoes in 2026#Removing non European tornadoes from the list and readdedd most of the non-European tornadoes (mainly Asian Turkish and Asian Russia from what I've seen) without forming a new consensus scroll from October 13th to October 19th, causing edit wars. GrenadinesDes (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree here, they’ve also been warned by other editors several times before, to no avail. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Talk:List_of_European_tornadoes_in_2026#Updated_Guidelines_by_Hjalpingers, which is Hjalpingers appearing to believe they can define how the article is edited by everyone else, which is obviously ridiculous. Even though it was linked above, I also hadn't noticed the diff of Loaf5979 telling people to go fuck themselves either, perhaps I should read a bit more carefully. Anyway, a long reading of all of those talkpages tells me that Hjalpingers (especially) and Loaf5979 ought to be steered away from editing those topics, because they clearly can't cope with their edits being argued against and the pages not looking exactly how they want, and they behave unpleasantly when they don't get their wishes. You can't be precious (and yes, WP:OWN) about pages if you want to continue editing a collaborative encyclopedia. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I asked about those "guidelines" to them, as it very much came across as owning the article. However, as they're now banned, nothing will come of my inquiry. Also I just want to note for the record, Hjalpingers claimed to be an ESWD reporter, so they already had a COI yet never stated that. TheClocksAlwaysTurn (The Clockworks) (contribs)(rights) 13:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I definitely think at least Hjal should be banned/indef

They have shown a history of a serious lack of civility, and the responses they have put out seem clearly racially charged WikiSal (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Coordination has been a serious problem in the weather community. See this Arbitration case. I took a look at the editors' talk pages and @StormL00ver canvassed Loaf5979 and Hjalpingers to the discussion. GiftedIceCream 15:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver Can you address this comment? GiftedIceCream 15:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@GiftedIceCream: that's not canvassing, it's making others aware of a discussion, something allowed. The line between canvassing and simple messaging is in how the message comes across as, which in this case is wholly neutral. Eoline 15:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Yep I was completely neutral. I didn't only informed them about the consesus. I informed multiple editors that contributed to this article. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, they only notified the editors that are in this thread, then they got warned by Mesocyclonic93. GiftedIceCream 15:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Wdm? I thought if a consesus happens other editors that work in this article should be informed about a consesus that had been formed. Also I didn't realized that they were going to cause so much WP:CİVİl issues. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 15:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

StormL00ver did say that "I can't tell you my opinion on this because it might affect the consensus" on Hjalpinger's talk page and only simply notified Loaf5979, so I don't see an issue with this. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely. Their statements and "jokes" are entirely unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I looked through the edits of both remaining users. As such, I've blocked Loaf for two weeks and topic banned from weather events for 6 months. I've given StormL00ver a logged warning. Both are done for WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN issues, and fall under WP:CT/WE. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, SFR. I had enough of dealing with these editors. (not StormL00ver) GiftedIceCream 13:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Loaf should also be indefed per this comment: I've developed such a deep hatred for it [Asians] in refuse to tell them about all the events they don't have there but can't find out any information, while i can, they all piss me off so much GiftedIceCream 14:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Support: He seems to be incredibly uncivil in general per his talk page WikiSal (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Support as I am in agreement with WikiSal's reasoning. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Support indef per civility. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 18:21, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per above and per WP:CIVILITY TornadoEF4 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. Borgenland (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the other two, I feel like it's important to note that StormL00ver has an unresolved AI noticeboard discussion in where they admit to using AI (though whether that applies to anything here I'm not sure, but I feel I should note it regardless), and as noted above, went against consensus and was very insistent on having their own idea of how the articles should look and treated talk pages like a forum. Loaf5979 has continued to be uncivil on talk pages, including insulting and disrespecting editors, including those who reviewed their drafts, (multiple examples of this on User talk:Loaf5979#), despite warnings/reminders from others. Additionally, like Hjalpingers, Loaf5979 made some question comments regarding Asians, shown in Diff 1 and Diff 2, and regardless if it was intended to be hateful or not, it really comes off badly. Overall, I have to support some type of action to be taken against the two. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)