Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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)

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)

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)

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

@Emeraldflames has repeatedly engaged in WP:Not here over the duration of their editing on Wikipedia. The majority of their edits is debating or replying to other editors on their talk pages, with a recent discussion initiated by one of my edits leading to said user editing talk pages a little under 20 times in the last few days. (Side note: I am probably not contesting the most recent edit any further following feedback from other editors). Regardless, this shows WP: Not here, and the editor’s inclination towards theorizing about the subject rather than adhering to sources shows pov-pushing un-encyclopedic behavior. JPHC2003 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages are where you resolve disputes with editors using facts and reason.

As he acknowledged, the dispute was not resolved in his favor.

That's exactly what talk pages are for, rather than edit war.

This, on the other hand, is just a frivolous complaint without merit and, ironically, an example of what this gentleman is trying to accuse me of.

Let's not waste people's time here, please. Emeraldflames (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

With no diffs showing misbehavior this is non-actionable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with talking on talk pages. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Lucabluini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They made a cut-and-paste move from Draft:Roberto Cafarotti to Roberto Cafarotti after their draft was declined twice. I'm reporting them here instead of warning them because of their past edits to other projects. On Italian Wikipedia, they recreated an article of the same name after it had already been deleted via discussion (log, discussion). As pointed out here, they made articles about the same non-notable subject on German and Russian Wikipedia, where it was also deleted. They've ignored advice from numerous editors on the notability guidelines of multiple projects. They also claimed that they don't have a conflict of interest with the article subject on Italian Wikipedia (diff). Streetr4 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to mention they removed the previous declines on their draft (diff). Streetr4 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The correct CSD rationale for this would be WP:CSD#G6, not A7. I've deleted the article in mainspace. I would point out that it is more concerning that they have been using Grok to write this article and nobody has pointed out that they should not be doing that, or using any form of AI to write article content in general. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Definitely in agreement about the draft being AI, there are plenty of WP:AISIGNS spattered around the text.

I've given them a TP warning so it's on record. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the AISIGNS, they're discussing using the LLM on Draft talk:Roberto Cafarotti. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah yep, Grok of all things - I should have noticed that. This is 100% LLM too. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 02:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I was originally inclined to just block from moves and page creation but given the cross wiki spam discussed on the Draft's talk and this being their sole focus, I have INDEFfed entirely. A time limited block would not be applicable given their editing cadence. Star Mississippi 17:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

~2026-56249-91 (talk · contribs) has run afoul of WP:CIVIL rather severely on their talk page after having an unsourced edit reverted. Can they have talk page access revoked?

Bonus points for also preventatively blocking ~2026-56299-14 (talk · contribs), who claims in the same thread that their account was compromised. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked the underlying IP (it's the same for both TAs), semi-protected the article and revdeleted the offensive edits. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to revdel the stuff on the talk page too. 🐺WolfOnABus 🚍 12:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Amortias (T)(C) 17:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Danners430: I'd like to request outside input on a recent incident at Starlux Airlines. Danners430 used a revert tool to restore an earlier revision of the article, removing several intervening edits, including my restructuring of the marketing section. The edit summary referred generally to problematic sources and unsourced content, but did not identify which statements or references were objectionable. It was only during our subsequent talk-page exchange that he specifically identified JetPhotos and Flightradar24 as sources he considered unreliable. I understand the importance of reliable sourcing, but I question whether a broad restoration was necessary when individual citations could have been challenged, replaced, or tagged with {{better source needed}}, or the affected material partially reverted. I approached him on his talk page rather than immediately bringing this to ANI. His response was terse, pointing out that the edits remained in page history and that reconstructing them was not "exactly world ending". He then closed the discussion while I was still composing my reply. Unaware of the closure, I submitted it, and he removed it. I'd already reconstructed the article myself and wasn't asking him to restore anything. I simply wanted him to recognize the effort involved and consider a more targeted approach to reverting. I'm asking for independent input on the handling of the revert and the subsequent attempt at discussion, not immunity from sourcing requirements.

Relevant revisions:

• Earlier revision restored
• Article revision history
• Talk-page closure
• Removal of my reply

Shencypeter (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Your edit was based on unreliable sources - Jetphotos (a spotter photo repository, the definition of WP:UGC) and FR24, which has already been discussed at RSN and agreed as unreliable for fleet information. That was what your edits were based on… so the edits were reverted. I closed the talk page discussion because there was nothing else to discuss - and you then reverted the closure, which you are not permitted to do on someone else’s talk page, in order to ask broadly the same question again. The response is the same - you made a bunch of edits which were based on unreliable sources, hence the edits were reverted. If you have reliable sources they can of course be restored.

I also fail to understand why there’s no discussion on the article talk and why we’re here… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, we are here because your reverts went well beyond the two minor citation issues you identified, removing substantial restructuring work in the process. You then closed the discussion on your own talk page. Shencypeter (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the third time I’m saying this… You made edits which were based on unreliable sources. Because your edits were based on unreliable sources they were reverted. It is as simple as that. You cannot use unreliable sources. Nobody is accusing you of acting in bad faith - nobody starts their editing career knowing every rule and every unreliable source. However if your edits are based on unreliable sources, then I’m sorry but you have to find replacements. Hence the revert.

To your earlier point - no, I’m not simply removing the sources and replacing them with {{bsn}} or {{cn}} - those are for when long-standing unsourced or poorly cited content is identified in articles, and I often use them then. They are not for brand new content and new edits, when you must provide reliable sources.

As for closing the talk page discussion… for the third time - there was nothing further to discuss. I am perfectly entitled to close or remove content on my own talk page - you on the other hand are not allowed to undo changes on a talk page that is not your own. If you are really still unsure why your edits sourced to unreliable sources were undone, which should be clear by now, then the right place is the article talk. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:09, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I thought Flightradar blog was reliable ~2026-53148-17 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Whether to remove poorly sourced text or tag it is at the discretion of the editors involved. There are many factors that can come into play that one might consider, such as how crucial the text is to the article, the length of the text, how long the text has been stable in an article, whether removal of text orphans other text, how likely that a tag will actually be addressed, and so on. Given that airlines/airports is one of the messiest topic areas on Wikipedia, with a long-term problem of sourcing, I don't have an issue with removal of poorly sourced text rather than a tag that may never be addressed.

I also don't see how this was a "chronic, intractable, behavioral problem." I still think Danners430 would personally benefit from taking a break from this topic (and have said so in the past), but this ANI report looks a bit like you simply being frustrated you got a curt reply from some weak edits, from an editor you have a history with. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s worth saying that this is no different to my reverts in other project areas, such as UK Rail where the same issues exist as in Aviation. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:28, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I've recently started looking into the rallying and motor racing world of articles, sheesh entire career finishing and scores with not a single source on most articles. Airlines look academic compared to motor racing. Canterbury Tail talk 20:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm rather unimpressed with Shencypeter's discussion at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner. On example:

For now, I would prefer to focus on resolving those content questions. I’m not going to get into a discussion about LLM use here; if there are specific concerns with my proposed text, sourcing, or reasoning, I’m happy to address those directly.

Anyone else see these near-identical two sentences about 10,000 times in the last 18 months?

And looking back in the history, Shencypeter was aware of serious concerns about their sourcing a good deal before the diffs linked. Given that history, it's even more justified for an editor to choose to revert rather than simply tag, wtih a reduced probability that the editor making the message will come back to adequately source the text added. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It’s also worth saying that @Shencypeter has previously admitted AI use, and their report here scores 100% in GPTzero, with a lot of very common tells (not least “requesting outside input”).

Given they’ve been to WP:AIN, and repeatedly refused to engage in AI discussions - @Shencypeter did you use AI to generate this report, and if so why are we talking to a machine? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

It does look a bit over-broad to me. The offending edit was at 20:02. The user then made a number of subsequent edits, some being relatively minor rewording but there were two (at 20:35 and at 20:42) that included citations from sources that are not Jetphotos or FR24 and that I haven't seen anyone specifically object to. Seeing how Danners told Shency that "it's not exactly world ending to find the changes and rebuild them", I'm puzzled why they didn't find the offending edits and surgically nuke them while sparing the unobjected material. -- Veggies (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Just as I missed the talk-page discussion being closed while composing my reply, it's possible to overlook the consequences of a revert. Using Twinkle to restore a specific revision such as 1381428941 may take one action, but it also discards the intervening edits, not just the two questionable citations. A broad revert with a vague edit summary reads dismissive makes it difficult to distinguish legitimate sourcing concerns from the unrelated work being removed. That's all I've been trying to explain. I've made my point and will leave it here for the evening. Shencypeter (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Not until you address the matter of your AI use above. You’ve done this numerous times - you get called out for using AI to generate talk page messages, and conveniently retire from the discussion. That doesn’t pass muster here. Please address your use of AI to write your talk page messages. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• @Shencypeter: Your report here also looks very LLM-ish to me. Please answer the que stion about your AI useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion about LLM use does not answer my original concern about the scope of the reversions. Both Twinkle and LLMs are tools, and editors remain accountable for how they use them. My question remains: why were unrelated constructive edits removed along with the disputed citations? Shencypeter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  When you report someone at ANI, your conduct is just as open to scrutiny as that of your original concern. WP:LLMTALK is relevant here in that if your OP is LLM generated (which it definitely looks to be, and many of your other comments also appear to be at least LLM assisted; in addition this most recent evasion is classic AI) this discussion cannot take place. So again: answer the question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  Short answer, I came here with a recurring grievance that my edits would be reverted, and I have since then corrected the offending citations. I wanted to contact Danners's talk page where he responded then closed the door behind him. I drafted my grievance and intentions -- as someone who's been here a while, maintenance tags feel softer and more constructive than a hard revert. Internally also failed to see how "unreliable source" is comparable to "oh no he broke the Infobox and must be restored" I wanted to express this coherently and thoughtfully rather than impulsively. The grievance, experiences, and underlying reasoning originated with me. GPT helped draft or rewrite portions of the ANI report, particularly its opening and closing. I accept responsibility for publishing that version and recognize the concern under WP:LLMTALK. Shencypeter (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Danners430:, for restoring my earlier contributions. I would like to clarify one point regarding the removed Flightradar24 citation. In our earlier discussion on your talk page, you explained your concerns about Flightradar24 potentially misrepresenting Lufthansa A340 aircraft as remaining in its fleet despite being scheduled for retirement. I understand that concern. However, the citation in question was not live tracking or fleet data, but a published editorial article covering the Airbus A350-1000's world tour in 2018, including its carbon-fibre-inspired livery. I suspect the domain itself may have raised sourcing concerns, irrespective of the particular article's content. I won't contest the removal further, but wanted to clarify that distinction. Shencypeter (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  An editorial on a blog is pretty much the classic definition of 100% unreliable. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:35, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  I have not restored any content - and given that the message I’ve been pinged in is also AI generated, with multiple tells and a 100% likelihood of AI generation from GPTzero, I won’t be replying. @Shencypeter we do not want to talk to a machine - we want to talk to you.

  Given that they claimed to recognise LLMtalk and immediately replied with another AI message, it’s obvious that this user is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Propose indefinite block - which is not a permanent block and can be appealed - until such time as the AI use ceases and they recognise the problems with using AI. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  Also worth noting as I'm sure some people haven't noticed, after a discussion at VPP I boldly edited WP:TALKNO to explicitly list generating comments with AI as something that isn't allowed in talk pages. I know that's the way it's been enforced lately anyway, but it's officially In The Policies™ now if you need to point people towards it. Athanelar (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  Are you still using LLMs? Because your response about LLMs sounds exactly like it was written by an LLM which is always a bad sign. Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  There are multiple LLM tells there, yeah. Shencypeter, consider this a final warning: continuing to use LLMs to generate talk page comments may result in sanctions up to and including your being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  My original concern has been addressed. However, the discussion has since shifted away from that concern, to the point where even my manually written replies have attracted accusations of LLM use.

  I have nothing further to add and will not be commenting further in this thread. Shencypeter (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  If you aren't willing to commit to stop inappropriate LLM use, then our only option is to block you Shencypeter. You opened this thread, you can't escape the consequences of that when it becomes clear that it you'reit's your behaviour that is the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC) 11:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

The place to "request outside input" (as long as it is requested by a human) is Talk:Starlux Airlines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I am aware the article Talk venue is the place to discuss reverts. But this is not what it looks like on the outside.

The talk page history has been clean for the past 2 years at Starlux.

Danners and I have this history going on since September Boeing 787. Therefore I’m suspect he followed me Vietnam from Vietnam to Starlux. Danners closed his own chat history the moment he replied. Nobody closes chat histories so urgently and reverts urgently, even if it’s their prerogative to do so. The Twinkle grievances hurt. Hence I raised the ANI to put both of us in the hot seat because this isn’t an article scope issue anymore, it has become editing and communication style. Shencypeter (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a chat history on Wikipedia. If you are discussing stuff on Discord or whatever no one has to engage with you there. Discussions on editor talk pages are not chat histories and while you're free to raise behavioural concerns, if an editor no longer wishes to discuss it they don't have to. You've raised your concerns and the editor should take them on board and adjust if need be. If you have concerns over article content such as sourcing and reverts of what you consider improvements you should bring these to the article talk pages. Discussions there are not only the proper place and welcome the whole community but they also are not dependent what other editors wish to discuss. No one cares when the last edit to the article talk page was. If you have concerns now then it's the time to open discussion. Finally if editors have expressed concern over your LLM use replying with a comment which sounds exactly like it was written by LLMs is a very bad idea. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Please revoke their TPA as this is an LTA. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 22:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

You can now manually request TPA revoke using {{TPA|username}} on AIV. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 10:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 12:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@IrisChronomia and Prothe1st: The shortcut seems to be {{subst:RTPA}}, but you can create Template:TPA as a shortcut as it is still unused. — Newslinger talk 12:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

TM:TPA is now a redirect to TM:Request TPA revocation. Athanelar (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done on 23 October 2026. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

SBS3426 created the article for No. 10: Full Confidence which appeared on the Main Page before being deleted: (G15: Unambiguously LLM-generated page: Hidden instructions to creator from LLM in gameplay section). Their response on the article's talk page prior to deletion was to file an edit request to have what seems to be an LLM-generated invisible comment removed from the page: "Verify that the current App Store description or version 2.0.0 release notes support these mechanics before submitting." They have a conflict of interest, which is disclosed on their user page. SBS3426 nominated the article at DYK, and it was approved with the comment "I have emailed Sleepy Boy Studios (SBS) Ltd. and User:SBS3426, confirming this COI and neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) for this nomination." SBS3426 has been civil and polite but this article amounts to using Wikipedia's most-viewed page to run an LLM-generated advertisement for a product (which reviewers complain about also seeing AI tells?).

I think a topic ban from the Main Page should be imposed on SBS3426. If there are further actions to take regarding LLM-generated articles, I invite people with more experience on that topic to give input. Also, I'll ping the editors who caught and discussed this issue at ERRORS in case they would like to comment, @Dclemens1971, Launchballer, and 1brianm7: none of these editors were involved with the creation or promotion of the article of course. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean to do this with any bad will, I thought the game having a wiki page would be informative to others, due to its popularity in the UK. As I am a newbie when it comes to making a full new page I reviewed my draft with AI which must had added in that comment. I wanted to make a dedicated account to do it from, to raise any COI to be transparent. I submitted to DYK after the suggestion appeared to do so, when the page was approved, as it seemed like an informative fun fact.

Sorry for causing any issues, but whatever outcome you take I'll respect. I just wanted to make a page for the Studios game. SBS3426 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@SBS3426 Wikipedia is not for promotion. If your goal is to inform people about your game, you should do that elsewhere. Athanelar (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

This was also briefly discussed on Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/No. 10: Full Confidence. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I'm the AfC reviewer who accepted that draft. I put it through two detectors, which didn't pick up on anything, and I myself didn't spot that App Store instruction until just now when I had another look. I'll be having a stern word with myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

None of us are perfect. I also sometimes forget to check for hidden text when more obvious AI signs aren't forthcoming. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that LLM use should be the least of our concerns here. Under what circumstances could it be considered remotely appropriate for an article created by a contributor with an unambiguous conflict of interest (SBS3426 is the owner and creator of the product) to be featured on the main page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, in this casae we could just indef. If, in the absolutely incredibly unlikely chancee this is too harsh, this would require a pblock from article and/or draft space, and/or a creation and/or move block. (no further comment) Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

and how does a brand new account know of and get so quickly approved for a DYK? None of us are perfect, but this failed a whole range of stop gaps which probably means we need to look at these processes. Star Mississippi 16:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

DYK participants are generally excited about and encouraging to new participants. Detecting LLM material is not in the skill set of every reviewer, and in this case the G15-eligible “tell” was only visible by looking at the wiki markup, which is not part of the DYK review process. The thing that was needed here was a gimlet eye due to the declared COI, which the (relatively novice) reviewer doesn’t seem to have applied and that it would have been helpful for the (more experienced) promoter and queue mover to have checked for. I wouldn’t say this failed a whole range of stopgaps, just that it should be a learning moment for DYK participants on the subtlety of LLM content and the need for extra care with COI. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Has the DYK reviewer know we're discussing their review at ANI? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

The article has been deleted as 'Unambiguously LLM-generated', which makes it rather difficult for anyone but admins to assess whether there were other obvious concerns. Any chance of it being draftified, or otherwise being made accessible while we discuss the issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Linked the AbuseLog/45389476 filter log entry in the AINB case, and there is also AbuseLog/45473380 from when the {{ai-generated}} tag was mistakenly removed. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted and fully protected, review at Draft:No. 10: Full Confidence. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Didn't see this comment, so I made a request at WP:RFPP/D so that more people could edit and clean up, including multiple people who do stuff at the AI noticeboard and other editors. The point is I thought it was too restrictive if we wanted to keep this page on the 'pedia and the average experienced editor would be able to edit (To show my impartiality, I'm imposing a stop on myself editing the draft for 12 hours.) Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 17:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

tbf it isn't blatant. This is why briefly-active accounts and TA editing are so problematic wrt LLM use, it's easiest to detect across a range of contribs, but hard when it comes to a few edits or a single article. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah there are other indicators:

• WP:AISUMMARY: Initial draft article about No. 10: Full Confidence, covering gameplay, development, release history and reception with references.. The "Initial draft article about X, with Y, Z" is so idiosyncratic an AI template that it's borderline taggable then and there. (Other examples from other articles: Initial draft creation of biography of Marty Morse — disclosed COI (son of subject), submitting via AfC for review (June 21, 2026); Initial draft of Padre Azul article, submitted for AfC review. COI disclosed on user page. (September 20, 2026); Initial draft of Gulf Stream School entry, including history, academics, and campus details. Submitted for review via AfC to comply with COI guidelines.} (May 13, 2026)
• Citation placement is characteristic of AI, a weaker indicator definitely, but seeing it after the AISUMMARY, another tip of the scale
• Also mild, but the "Reception" section summarizes sources in the way that AI does. For instance, interpreted it as reflecting mutual distrust is somewhat of a stretch -- the "mutual distrust" bit is a tangent that the author never directly ties to the game, and the thing she does directly tie to the game is we have absolutely lost the ability to conceive of the economic governance of the state, except in terms of the bond markets. But chatbots will leap at even the slightest opportunity to say something reflects a theme.
• Other "tier 2" indicators as I call them: doing X while preserving Y, stated aim was X rather than Y, etc

Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: archived by archive.org after appearing on the main page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It would still be useful to have it draftified so we can see the edit history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

In case you didn't see @AndyTheGrump, @Rsjaffe did just that Draft:No. 10: Full Confidence Star Mississippi 17:37, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Yikes. This is quite an egregious breach of community trust. Should users be blocked for behaviors like this? This might have been read by tens of thousands of people. Personally, I had read this article yesterday and had not realized it was an ad. I even considered buying the game! TheAwesomeHwyh 17:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the article (now back in draft form, with thanks), it's no better or worse than many if not most of our new articles these days. There are few LLM tells (none that you can see from a casual glance, anyway), there's accurately asserted notability, it's not got the usual CLICK HERE TO BUY NOW unsubtly of 95% of our spam. Add our natural tendency to AGF and, yeah, I'm not surprised it passed the very low bar of getting into mainspace and the also low bar of ending up in DYK.

If this isn't a one-off, then we might ask questions of the people who removed the {{AI-generated}} and the {{db-llm}} tags. But personally, I'm not seeing that AFC or DYK is truly broken from this.

As to sanctioning SBS3426... I dislike Votes for Banning, but suspect that they have completely lost community trust, if only because their advert was so successfully placed. • a frantic turtle 🐢 17:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 on the process points. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Launchballer was fine for removing the DB-LLM tag. Articles are prohibited from being tagged for speedy deletion or at AfD when on the main page. I made note of this when reporting the article at ERRORS. I am fairly certain MarchRain was also operating in good faith, as the immediate LLM tell is only apparent from the edit window (probably more obvious in visual editor, though I spied it in markdown).

The way I noticed that it was LLM-generated was I looked on the main page, and saw that the hook was in the quirky spot, which is usually reserved for wordplay or fun hooks (e.g., my hook "that the United States Supreme Court is not the Highest Court in the Land?). I looked at the hook that ran and thought it was rather uninteresting and poorly constructed for achieving interest. E.g., why say the name of the game on main page, it doesn't make the hook more interesting (I have a guess now...). I looked at the article and immediately went down to the reception section, where I saw an LLM tell. It is heavily attributed and puts things out of wikivoice that do not need to be in it. "In June 2026, Mobilegamer.biz reported that the game had entered the top ten of the UK App Store's paid games chart.[5] On 9 July, Metro reported that it had reached number one, ranking above Minecraft.[9]" and "Civil Service World reported that Conservative MP Alicia Kearns praised the game's depiction of political life, particularly how minor issues can escalate into national controversies.[11]". Humans don't really do that for non-controversial facts. I then opened the edit window of the first revision, after I light skim of the edit history suggested that it had been edited somewhat that would obfuscate LLM tells (an errant assumption), and moments after thinking "If this what at NPP, I would have stubbified it and then marked it as reviewed, but since this on DYK I can't do that"... at which point I spied the invisible comment.

Everything seems to have mostly worked out while I was asleep. RIP I've lost my purity, this is my first edit at AN/I 1brianm7 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

"Articles are prohibited from being tagged for speedy deletion or at AfD when on the main page." If that's true, beyond vandals doing it for abusive reasons which will be quickly spotted, then it's actually arse about face. Being on the main page should mean more scrutiny, not rules stepping in to say nobody can do anything about a fully fledged AI-derived advertisement appearing there. If our bureaucracy means anybody involved in the compilation of the main page shrugged and said to themselves "well, this is against every single pillar of our entire project established in the last 25 years, but the deletion tag on it must be removed because the rules say so" then what the hell are we all here for?

Leaving that aside, the removal of your AI template note was a terrible error, and you shouldn't feel the need to defend putting it there in the first place. You were on the side of the angels. • a frantic turtle 🐢 22:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: can you explain what has SBS3426 done wrong, apart from the AI use? I can see that, when they used the articles for creation process, they didn't tick the box to note paid or COI editing, which is probably a common error. Then they disclosed their connection at DYK, so if the DYK decision was wrong, that seems like a problem with DYK policies or DYK reviewers. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon: "that seems like a problem with DYK policies or DYK reviewers" perhaps and you're welcome to bring those editors into this conversation. I don't think SBS3426 has done something morally wrong. I think they created an article on a product they developed and then took steps to get it onto the encyclopedia's most-viewed page. That amounts to a kind of promotion that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia where all of the articles are presented as-is, where a reader does not have some separate category of press releases, editorials, interviews, etc. The AI use and the lack of clarity around the AI use exacerbate the problem, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the article (as of draft approval, and at the latest version), I note that of the eleven sources cited, only six are independent, and the clearly-non-independent Apple App Store is by far the most widely cited.

What we have here is an article written (or LLM-prompted) by the game's owner. The opportunities for cherry-picking sources and otherwise engaging in promotion should be obvious. We should be able to do better than this with regard to articles on commercial products generally, and selecting it for front-page placement is desparately poor judgement in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I don’t believe a topic ban is needed, but the editor should be soft blocked until their username is compliant. (Right now it looks like it’s a company name. I’m on mobile so not easily able to block at the moment.) The editor has been warned about AI use and should be blocked immediately if they use it again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: what is the problem with "SBS3426"? Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use says "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person", e.g. "FacebookFanatic87". TSventon (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

SBS is the name of the company here, so SBS + a string of numbers probably does not suitably individualise the name. This is less FacebookFanatic87 and more Facebook87. Athanelar (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I would be 99% confident that if I reported this username to UAA, I would be sent away. There is, rightly, a wide latitude with usernames and this seems to me, from experience, to be dead centre in the grey area where action is a roll of the dice as to which admin you get and what they choose to do: block, discuss, or reject. I really think this would be on the "reject and wag a finger at the reporter" end of that spectrum. Heroically mixing metaphors here. Probably time for bed. • a frantic turtle 🐢 18:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971, agreed, I have blocked them. Mfield (Oi!) 20:08, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

• I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#COI nominations. TSventon (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

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

This user's edits mostly consist of uppercasing "white" as White , when the article already has a standard style, or in contravention of that style, which is a violation of MOS:RACECAPS; some of their edits are fine per MOS:RACECAPS and improve consistency, but most don't, are unexplained, and the tendentiousness is concerning. After a few days they just do it again with no comment ( see Special:Contributions/Mcpiro). I will note that they frequently leave "black" uncapitalized in such articles while capitalizing white, e.g. their edit to The Order (white supremacist group) . They also frequently remove "neo-Nazi" in favor of the label "White Nationalist", even when this is obviously not true/not how the sources describe them , or removing neo-Nazi on people like Robert Jay Mathews, who were open and avowed neo-Nazis . This edit is also curious .

Despite being informed of MOS:RACECAPS, they have continued the edits. Bizarrely they don't even seem to be doing it solely in the ethno-racial context - see them capitalizing "White marble" Their edits on their talk page are also basically nonsensical - they just keep repeating "unsubscribe" or "is this a bot?" over and over. Their edits are also improperly marked as minor, which they continued despite being warned. I really don't know what to make of this. They are utterly unresponsive to concerns over their despite being reverted multiple times and warned by multiple different users (see User talk:Mcpiro#October 2026). PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

note that they frequently leave "black" uncapitalized in such articles while capitalizing white You missed the fact that in some cases they are actively changing "Black" to "black" in the same edit that they change "white" to "White": see their first ever edit for instance. This is obviously tendentious editing, and their immature trolling on their talk page in response to your attempts to communicate goes to show that this editor is obviously WP:NOTHERE. Athanelar (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed their edits and see deceptive edit summaries, POV pushing, and apparent racism. Indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:25, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Needs talk page access withdrawing too - clearly not going to offer any sort of legitimate block appeal, and seems to be trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I warned the user about making edits to controversial topics, (WP:GS/KURD) i even sent a warning to them about ECP gaming, but they didn't really care at all. Jason.v9 is now trying to game ECP so that they can edit in WP:GS/KURD topics. They are doing edit farming on random pages. Kajmer05 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

If the user does go ahead to make controversial edits to GS/KURD, I'll probably suggest a revoke of EC. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 10:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Classic rapid small edits, many to same page. Removed XC. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:33, 26 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.
Hello, I would like to raise concerns about two serious allegations made by reviewer Helpful Raccoon regarding my draft, Mamoun Abu Nowar. First, the allegation concerning Saraha News (صراحة نيوز), an independent Jordanian news outlet. The reviewer stated that an article published by Saraha News “appears to be a copy of a proposed LLM-generated Wikipedia article.” Saraha News is an established Jordanian news outlet that has operated since 2010, publishing in both Arabic and English. It has its own ownership, editorial team and published editorial policy. It is independent of both me and the subject of the draft. I find this statement particularly troubling. On what evidence is the reviewer suggesting that an independent newspaper copied an allegedly AI-generated Wikipedia draft? No comparison or supporting evidence was provided in the review comment. I have no involvement in the newspaper’s editorial decisions, nor am I responsible for how its journalists produce their work. Its reporting is separate from my Wikipedia contributions. Second, the repeated allegation that my writing was AI-generated. I wrote this draft myself, without using ChatGPT or any other language model. I am a researcher whose work has appeared in established publications, and I take the integrity of my writing seriously. AI-detection tools are known to produce false positives and cannot establish authorship with certainty. I do not know whether the reviewer used such a tool, but the repeated suggestion that my writing was AI-generated was not accompanied by specific supporting evidence in the review comments. Following the review on 21 September 2026, I revised the draft on 26 September and submitted it again. On 25 October 2026, the same reviewer rejected the draft on notability grounds while again raising concerns about alleged AI-generated content. The rejection also prevents resubmission through the normal Articles for Creation process. There is also a broader concern about how the subject’s notability has been assessed. Major General Mamoun Abu Nowar has worked as a military and regional security analyst for more than two and a half decades and has been consulted by major international news organizations. He was recently interviewed for CBS Evening News, as shown in this video: https://youtu.be/47IAMLPDFrI?is=lRjqMJcK8NNN5NrP The subject also has an existing article on Arabic Wikipedia. Together with the available Arabic-language reporting and international media coverage, I believe this warrants a serious and informed assessment of the sources, preferably by editors familiar with the Middle East, regional media, and military and security affairs. My concern is that the repeated AI allegations, the statement about an independent newspaper and the final rejection have not been adequately justified in the review comments. I am asking for an independent examination of the reviewer’s conduct and the evidence behind these statements. I also request that the final rejection be reconsidered, that the restriction on resubmission be reviewed, and that the draft receive a fresh assessment by an uninvolved reviewer familiar with the subject’s regional context. Mamoun Naji (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

You are required to notify HelpfulRacoon of this complaint, as instructed to do at the top if this page. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, MarkBernstein. I have already notified Helpful Racoon on his talk page about this ANI discussion: User talk:Helpful Raccoon#c-Mamoun Naji-20261025173900-Notification of ANI discussion Mamoun Naji (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@Mamoun Naji Your entire comment reads to me as AI-generated. Are you using ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, or other tools including Grammarly to write or help write your text? qcne (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I concur. There's multiple 'rule of threes', along with other signs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

GPTZero: "We are highly confident this text was human written and polished with AI". Pangram: AI 86%, AI Assisted 8%, Human 6%. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:38, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the draft: Draft:Mamoun Abu Nowar. Suðurhafsljósæta (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

An English version of the Saraha News "article", which Mamoun Naji claims is not a copy of a Wikipedia draft, can be seen at https://www.sarahanews.net/1343983-mamoun-abu-nowar/. Note that it ends with a "see also" section with nonfunctioning links.

The Arabic Saraha News "article" https://www.sarahanews.net/1343979-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%85%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%88-%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1/, which was the one cited in Draft:Mamoun Abu Nowar, is a different draft that is literally a translated version of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Mamoun_Abu_Nowar&oldid=1332445149. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Any news publication, wherever it is from and however reiable is may otherwise be, can fall foul of one lazy reporter, as Helpful Raccoon has shown to have happened here. And why, since LLMs have become widely available, have we seen so many attempts to "raise concerns" and so many requests for "independent examination" on a noticeboard for admins? They have nothing to do with admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the responses to "you are using AI" are so often "uses AI to generate a rant about how dare they make an accuation about using AI" that if I had a nickel for every time it happened I could fill Scrooge McDuck's money bin is bemusingly saddening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

RO11SR0YC3 (talk · contribs) used to be a seemingly normal editor, but then they suddenly started blanking articles relating to Russians. Has their account been hacked? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked for now for disruptive editing. Perhaps a patrolling CU would be willing to evaluate whether the account's technical data differs from the norm? Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser. It just seemed weird. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion the account has not been compromised.* (*asterisks apply) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: It appears that RO11SR0YC3 has confirmed on their talk page that they were compromised and have regained access to their account, and that they understand why their account was blocked. ✦Inzessin✦ ^(talk) 19:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I've left a comment there. Perhaps another passing checkuser would like to hover around for a second opinion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:46, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Thef0rest 2 (talk · contribs) is advocating for illegal things that I'd rather not say directly. Please block them! TheAwesomeHwyh 21:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I can't see where they're advocating for such things. So far they seem to have just written about it. — Czello ^(music) 21:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I misread them then? Thanks! I didn't click on the link that they included for fear of what might show up... TheAwesomeHwyh 21:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso is engaged in an edit war over reference section headings at List of ECO codes:

• 1
• 2
• 3

I have restored the original headings twice (1, 2) per WP:CITEVAR and WP:REFSECTION, but Ihardlythinkso has continued with the edit war. Ihardlythinkso has a long history of this type of behaviour. Khiikiat (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

This should probably be posted to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring instead of here ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

More correctly, Ihardlythinkso and yourself are involved in an edit war. Anyway, the TA is correct; if this belongs anywhere, it is at WP:AN3. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• ~2026-57047-28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please remove TPA for ~2026-57047-28 (talk · contribs)? Celjski Grad (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

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

Two-week old account which has been continuously adding OR on top of removing sourced content. Despite being reverted by different editors and warned (by me) including for contentious topics (WP:CT/SA).

E.g. (restores despite reversal ), (restores ), , , , , , , etc.

Unlikely to respond here or desist. Gotitbro (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Indeed. Blocked indef to see if that raises a human response anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2026 (UTC)